European Union Institute for Security Studies
1
I
S
S
Opinion
Union européenne
European Union
Jacques
Rupnik*
June 2009
ThE challEngES Of EU EnlaRgEmEnT In
ThE BalkanS
* Jacques Rupnik, Director of Research at CERI-
Sciences Po, Paris and Visiting Fellow at the
College of Europe, Bruges, is also Associate
Researcher with the EUISS. He is a specialist in
Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
During the wars that broke up the former Yugoslavia
and in their immediate aftermath, the European Union
was often criticised for being inconsistent in its se-
curity policies and for the latent tension between the
emphasis on postwar regional cooperation (set out in
the Stability Pact) and the priority given to the merits
of individual countries as the basis on which their EU
membership prospects were to be assessed (SAA
agreements). Today, the overall thrust of the EU’s
Balkans policy has moved from an agenda dominated
by security issues related to the wars that tore the
region apart to an agenda focused on the Western
Balkans’ EU accession prospects. A formal political
commitment of all EU Member States to accession
has existed since the Thessaloniki summit of June
2003. Kosovo’s independence in February 2008 can
be seen as the turning point between the final stage of
post-Yugoslav fragmentation and the region’s engage-
ment in the European integration process. A coherent
EU approach to the region, it seemed, had been found
at last: the framework was in place, the verbal com-
mitments of the political elites in the region were clear
enough, and the policy tools were supposedly familiar
to all since the previous wave of Eastern enlarge-
ment. After all, what was the difference between en-
largement to Central Europe and enlargement to the
Balkans? Ten years. There are, however, a number
of reasons why this optimistic assessment (as well as
the coherence of EU enlargement policies) should be
questioned.
1. The EU and other major international
actors
US-led NATO
enlargement in Central Europe pre-
ceded the enlargement of the EU and it seemed that
this pattern was at work again in the Western Balkans
with the recent accession of Croatia and Albania to
the Atlantic Alliance. The transatlantic bond and the
emphasis on security appeared as a pre-condition to
a successful integration to the EU. In recent years the
international presence in the Balkans has become
increasingly Europeanised, with US priorities hav-
ing shifted outside of Europe. The list of priorities is
long, encompassing the G2 with China, the ‘reset’
policy towards Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Balkans
at the bottom of the list – something that is not always
greatly appreciated in the region. However, the US
has, since Vice-President Biden’s visit to the region in
2009, shown signs of continuing engagement which
is also seen as crucial by several actors in the region
(Bosniaks, Kosovars, Albanians and Croats). There
are occasional transatlantic differences concerning
assessments of the region’s stability, particularly in re-
lation to Bosnia (as voiced by Richard Holbrooke) and
these have significant policy implications: should the
Office of the High Representative (OHR) be retained
or not? Is there a need for a US ‘special envoy’ to the
European Union Institute for Security Studies
2
region? Although scaling down US engagement in the
Balkans is consistent with the process of European
integration, now seen as ‘the only game in town’, the
EU should encourage the US to maintain an involve-
ment in the region especially as the US professes that
its primary goal is precisely to assist in the region’s
accession into the EU. We have moved from security-
driven containment to politically-driven integration
which can only be helped by a transatlantic ‘insurance
policy’ for the Balkans.
Russia
played virtually no part in Central Europe’s ac-
cession to the EU but it has in recent years acquired a
significant nuisance capacity in a number of countries
in the Balkans, most obviously in relation to energy
supply and the Kosovo question. Serbia now tends to
be considered in Brussels as pivotal to the region and
its current government as the most favorable to the
EU in two decades. Yet it has made a deal with Russia
on both the above-mentioned issues: giving Moscow a
stake in the energy sector while relying on its backing
in the UN over Kosovo. The consistency of the EU’s re-
spective positions on Kosovo and the ‘frozen conflicts’
in the Caucasus has, predictably, been questioned by
Russia. To say that these are self-serving arguments
does not dispense with the need to address the ten-
sion between the legitimacy of Kosovo’s declaration
of independence and the difficult quest for its interna-
tional legal recognition.
Turkey
opened enlargement negotiations with the EU
before the countries of the Western Balkans which,
from their perspective, was, for historical reasons, dif-
ficult to understand. The question of the consistency
of the EU’s future approach to enlargement could be
summed up as follows: is the EU aiming, given the ge-
ographic proximity of the region, for a ‘post-Ottoman’
enlargement to the South East? Or in the context of
the enlargement debate should the EU, for the sake of
political feasibility, keep the two issues of Turkey and
the Balkans separate? There have been interesting
and on the whole positive developments in the rela-
tions between the countries of the region (particularly
Greece, Bulgaria and most recently Serbia) that might
favour such an approach. However, the strong reluc-
tance among public opinion with regard to the EU en-
largement to Turkey (particularly among the founding
members of the EU) and Turkey’s new assertiveness
as an international player suggest that, if the EU is
serious about extending enlargement to the Western
Balkans, it might be best to dissociate their specific
case from that of Turkey.
2. coherence between regional and indi-
vidual approaches to EU integration
This brings to the fore the question of coherence be-
tween regional and individual approaches to EU in-
tegration, highly topical since the debates about the
regional priorities of the Stability Pact for the Balkans
and the competition among individual countries en-
couraged by the SAA process. The current assumption
is that the ‘regatta’ approach works fine for the EU as
it makes the enlargement process ‘discreet’ enough to
meet with acceptance among Western public opinion
and the political elites of the countries concerned. All
of them support the swift accession of Croatia which
they see as opening the door to the EU for the rest
of the Western Balkans. The logic of emulation may
work for some such as the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia (FYROM) or Montenegro, both of which
have already submitted their applications for EU mem-
bership. But for ‘unfinished’ states such as Bosnia,
Kosovo and Serbia there may be a case for a ‘paral-
lel track’ accession to the EU. The shared European
roof was meant to help defuse and overcome conten-
tious territorial and institutional issues. To be sure, no
country’s accession should in principle be held hos-
tage to the intransigence of its neighbour(s). But given
the possible repercussions of different aspects of the
‘Serbian question’ it also seems prudent to make sure
that unfinished statehood issues are settled simulta-
neously during the accession process when leverage
is strongest. This is a case for a regional approach
on a smaller scale, at least for a limited number of
countries.
All of this also helps to address concern regarding the
solution of unresolved conflicts during the EU accession
process. There is no shortage of bilateral tensions and
contentious issues in the region. Croatia, to take the ex-
ample of the frontrunner for EU accession, has pending
border issues with all its neighbours. The one that ap-
peared easiest to solve, because it involved Slovenia,
recently became a very sensitive matter that risked
blocking Croatia’s EU accession (going all the way to
a referendum which took place on 6 June, although
the result boosted Croatia’s accession prospects). The
most difficult one obviously concerns relations between
Serbia and Kosovo, as even the most pro-European
Serbian politicians keep repeating that recognition
is out of the question. Foreign minister Vuk Jeremic
formulated Serbia’s three ‘no’s: no to recognition of
Kosovo, no to NATO accession and no to changing the
status quo in Bosnia Herzegovina (i.e. not challenging
European Union Institute for Security Studies
3
Republika Srpska’s Prime Minister Dodik’s quest for a
state-within-a-state). The third bilateral difficulty on the
road to the EU concerns the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia’s quest for a post-FYROM identity ac-
ceptable to its Greek neighbour.
3. coherence between EU policies
The other question concerns the coherence between
EU policies and those of its individual Member States.
Some of them have, for historical and geographic rea-
sons, been more involved (Greece, Austria, Italy) from
the outset. Others, who are new members of the EU
(Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania), have a direct stake in
the region’s stability and accession prospects. The
proximity and involvement of an EU Member State is
usually considered to be a powerful vector of EU influ-
ence in the region. But it can sometimes become an
impediment. Athens’s unresolved conflict with Skopje
over the name of the Macedonian state has blocked
the latter’s joining NATO (which was supported by all
other EU members). Croatia’s difficulty or reluctance
in settling the border issue with Slovenia has led the
latter to remind Zagreb that its consent is necessary
to ratify Croatia’s membership of NATO. Perhaps the
clearest warning for the EU in the region comes from
the case of Cyprus: it was included to the Eastern
enlargement of 2004 at the insistence of Greece and
the assumption in the EU was that accession to the
Union would be conditional on ending the partition of
the island in accordance with the UN plan. We know
what happened to that assumption and this is now
considered in the EU as a major lesson for the future
in dealing with the Western Balkans.
These developments should suffice to qualify the wide-
spread assumption that a Member State is the best
‘advocate’ of its neighbour as a prospective candidate
member and the best force for stabilisation. The inclu-
sion of Croatia in the EU would certainly contribute
to the stabilisation of democracy there. However, the
impact on neighbouring Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) re-
mains debatable as Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina,
the majority of whom own Croatian passports, are
losing interest in the future of their state (there are
more voters registered in Croatia than there are ac-
tual citizens). Romania is the most vocal advocate of
Moldova’s future membership in the EU. Its influence
over its Eastern neighbour has, during the 2009 politi-
cal crisis in Chisinau, been alternately depicted in terms
of ‘attraction’ and ‘destabilisation’ by opposing sides in
the political struggle. In short, a coherent enlargement
policy should also entail a careful consideration of its
impact on neighbours and thus its relationship to the
EU’s neighbourhood policy or its ‘Eastern Partnership’.
4. from protectorates to integration
through nation-state building
In the light of the above, the EU’s two main successive
strategic approaches in the region can be summed
up as follows: (i) moving from crisis management to
Europeanised protectorates; (ii) overseeing the tran-
sition from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo from in-
ternational protectorates to EU candidate states. The
difficulty (and this is where consistency is most imme-
diately tested) is that the EU is for the first time in its
history directly involved in assisting in the creation of
its future Member States. There are three ‘unfinished’
states in the Western Balkans: Bosnia, Kosovo and
Serbia. EU Commissioner for enlargement Olli Rehn
has rightly pointed out that protectorates cannot be in-
tegrated in the EU. Nor can unfinished states. This is
why two (hopefully) vanishing protectorates should be
examined as test cases.
Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Is Bosnia a stable state? The
answer depends on which High Representative you
listen to: former HR Paddy Ashdown fears disintegra-
tion while, in the view of one his most recent succes-
sors, Miroslav Lajcak of Slovakia, the Bonn powers
have become irrelevant as well as the HR’s office
itself. Is Bosnia a functional state? Clearly the an-
swer has to be negative. Fifteen years after Dayton
it is a country with a constitution that segregates its
ethnic communities to ensure peace but prevents the
emergence of an integrated polity. The country has no
Supreme Court, no independent judiciary, and oper-
ates under three legal systems and four penal codes.
The European Court of Human Rights has recently
condemned BiH for preventing one of its citizens from
running for president on grounds of ethnicity (the Finci
case). In short: the country needs to move from the
Dayton constitution to a Brussels-oriented constitu-
tion. No amount of external pressure by European and
American (Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg
has visited Sarajevo five times in the past year) has so
far, as the Butmir process in October 2009 showed,
been able to achieve substantial progress on this key
issue for the future viability of the state.
The protectorate ensured stability but reinforced dys-
functionality. Can the transition from the protectorate
and a shift to a pre-accession agenda generate a pow-
erful enough leverage to push through the institutional
reform that is vital to develop a sense of ownership and
make BiH a viable polity? This is where one man’s plea
for the credibility of the European leverage borders on
another man’s act of faith. The one major positive de-
velopment to report is that Belgrade and Zagreb have,
for reasons associated with their European accession
prospects, abandoned the divisive policies of the past.
This in turn could help the process of reconciliation
European Union Institute for Security Studies
4
without which the trust necessary for overcoming the
prevailing logic of ethnic exclusion cannot be built.
Kosovo
’s independence, proclaimed in February
2008, has gradually led to a scaling down of UNMIK
and launched EULEX as the largest civilian mission
ever launched under CSDP. The challenge is to as-
sist in Kosovo’s transition from protectorate status and
build up a new state in a process where the EU pres-
ence would be transformed into a pre-accession moni-
toring role. The rationale sounds coherent enough on
the surface; however it must be remembered that:
The EU still coexists with UNMIK and the International
Civilian Office (ICO). EULEX is supposed to as-
sist the rule of law in the new state, but it officially
remains ‘status-neutral’ given that five EU Member
States have not recognised Kosovo independence.
Meanwhile it remains unclear what legislation applies
when in Kosovo: is it the international regulations
adopted in the past decade under UNMIK? Is it the
new laws voted by the democratically elected Kosovo
parliament? Or is it (in the Northern enclave around
Mitrovica) Serbian/ex-Yugoslav law? Depending on
where you are and when you get different answers to
this question. And this, in turn leads to other related
questions: which state, which international agency,
which law? This surely is the most formidable ‘consist-
ency challenge’ for EU representative Peter Feith and
more generally for the EU mission in Kosovo. Hence
also the question: is Kosovo really an independent
state on the road to the EU or does the presence of
the EULEX mission simply mark a new phase in its
existence as a protectorate? Will Kosovo be able to
establish a new relationship with its Serbian minority
and with Serbia on their parallel tracks into the EU? Or
is partition, Belgrade’s hidden agenda, an acceptable
one for the EU exit strategy?
w w w
These are some of the main dilemmas raised in ex-
amining the coherence of the EU’s approaches to the
Western Balkans. There is a stark contrast between
stated goals and their actual implementation. No won-
der ‘Europeanisation’ looks different when seen from
Brussels and from the countries at the receiving end.
This is also where enlargement fatigue within the EU
meets ‘accession fatigue’ in the Balkans. The latter
has two aspects: the political elites in the region some-
times using verbal commitments to EU accession as
a smokescreen for business as usual. Equally, there
is the erosion of popular support for EU accession
(strongest where it is least advanced, in Albania; weak-
est where it is most advanced, in Croatia) According to
a Gallup Balkan Monitor poll from November 2009 the
majority of citizens in each of the candidate countries
for joining the EU believe their country is ‘heading in
the wrong direction’. Hence the importance of check-
ing such premature doubts about a process which has
hardly started. This points to the limited usefulness of
a ‘summit to commemorate a summit’ (Sarajevo 2010
celebrates Zagreb 2000) and to the need for tangible
measures that would facilitate citizens’ directly identi-
fication with Europe. Visa liberalization has obviously
been the most important both symbolically and politi-
cally. But it is equally important to recognise that EU
accession does not concern just governments and
institutions and must involve societies concerned.
Money spent by the EU on assistance to civil soci-
ety actors is the best investment in the success of the
process.
The agenda for both the countries of the Western
Balkans and for the EU seems clear enough. For the
former the priority must be to respond to the doubts
raised about the rule of law after the accession of
Romania and Bulgaria by tackling the question of cor-
ruption and clientelism and by addressing its main
sources: the legacies of the war economy (getting
around international trade embargoes through the
black market and the development of a shadow econ-
omy), the privatisation process and the use of public
sector employment for patronage and state capture.
These countries must show that nationalisms can be
made ‘eurocompatible’ along the Croatian model with
a binding commitment to resolve the aforementioned
border disputes which could become a serious im-
pediment to EU accession. The lesson from Cyprus is:
there will be no EU enlargement unless the bilateral
conflicts are resolved first.
For the EU, the Balkans requires it to a rethink its con-
cept of enlargement which cannot , for the reasons out-
lined above, be simply a replica of the pattern success-
fully implemented in Central Europe. The EU should
strengthen the regional approach by granting candidate
status to all countries of the region and setting a date
to open negotiations. The pace and completion of the
process will then depend on the capacity to deliver of
the political elites of each country, thus making their
respective responsibilities clear and the political risks
and costs of failure more acceptable. Such a tangible
and assertive European commitment to the Balkans,
which is not challenged within the EU, is all the more
important as it remains, for the foreseeable future, the
only convincing scenario for EU enlargement. It would
also be the best way for the EU to downplay its divi-
sions (over Kosovo), overcome its hesitations between
containment and integration, and restore its credibility
in the region and as an international actor.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the EUISS