The Next Europe: Southeastern Europe after Thessaloniki

Summary

The European Council and the Balkan Summit in Thessaloniki failed to deliver the necessary consistent implementation strategy for the European integration of the Balkans. At the same time, the euphoria related to the successful completion of Eastern enlargement seems to nurture the illusion that this role model of integration suffices to cope with the stability risks and the developmental deficits of the Balkans. In their latest analysis that looks beyond the political statements of Thessaloniki, the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Center for Applied Policy Research champion a rethinking and renewal of Balkan strategies. The arrangement should contain as many pre-accession instruments as practicable, as much stabilisation policy as needed and as much economic-development assistance as possible.

Since 2000, the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Center for Applied Policy Research have studied potentials and limitations of a “European perspective” for the Western Balkans. Integration strategies were assessed and designed in cooperation with the Planning Staff of the German Foreign Ministry and leading think tanks from the region. On the basis of the conclusions from Thessaloniki, the following paper analyses the regional state of affairs and identifies strengths and weaknesses of current European Balkan policies.

The Balkans 2003

With EU reform, migration, Iraq and transatlantic relations high on the political agenda, the Balkans were never expected to feature prominently during the deliberations of the heads of state at the Thessaloniki European Council on 19 and 20 June 2003. Thanks to the Greek Presidency and the geographic proximity of Europe’s troubled southeast, the Presidency’s Conclusions provide some clues on European strategies beyond Eastern enlargement 2004. The next day, the same city provided the right ambience for the EU-Western Balkans Summit and a solemn re-confirmation of Europe’s commitment to the integration of the Western Balkans.

Late last year, Athens declared Southeastern Europe a “key priority” of its EU Presidency. Meanwhile, the European rift brought to the fore by the Iraq war has spoiled the euphoria of the accession of the ten countries, celebrated in Athens on 16 April. The recent controversies concerning the more far-reaching proposals of the European Convention have sobered ambitions for a truly Common Foreign and Security Policy. Thus, half a year later, the Greek promise “to keep the Balkans high on the agenda” has become a tall call by itself. Yet, recent developments in the region and the projected consequences of Eastern enlargement require a determined rethinking and renewal of European strategies for Southeastern Europe.

An optimist might argue that the region has not witnessed any new outbursts of ethnic violence and that the main state-building arrangements set up by Americans and Europeans have been upheld: the 1995 Dayton Agreement for Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 1999 UNSC Res. 1244 for Kosovo, the 2001 Ohrid Agreement for Macedonia and the 2002 Belgrade Agreement for the FRY. Regional co-operation is picking up pace, e.g. in the form of a system of bilateral free-trade agreements initiated by the Stability Pact. The Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP), moreover, has gained acceptance as the EU’s main strategy for the eventual integration of the Balkan region. Croatia’s application for “graduation” from the SAP to candidate status in February 2003 is a clear

indication of the reform stimulus provided by the European perspective.

A pessimist would point to the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic on 12 March 2003 as a sad reminder of both the all-pervasiveness of organised crime in the Balkans and the utter fragility of political consolidation. Numerous unresolved issues of nation and state building – the Kosovars striving for independence, the tug of war between Slavic and Albanian Macedonians, local Serbs’ unwillingness to come to terms with the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the unforgotten idea for a referendum on Montenegrin independence – keep the European crisis managers on high alert. Croatia’s “graduation”, moreover, would make shambles of regional cooperation in the Western Balkans. Prospects that other countries will be able to sign a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (let alone, graduate from the SAP) in the near future are dim.

The optimist and the pessimist would nevertheless agree that since the end of the Kosovo War in June 1999, “Europe” has gradually replaced the USA as the key player in the region. The EU High Representative masterminded the new state of Serbia and Montenegro, while the EU has taken over police and peace-keeping missions in Bosnia and Macedonia respectively. The EU, the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the 15 member states contribute the lion’s share of assistance. The Stability Pact that includes the UN, the USA and Russia, has meanwhile become complementary to the EU’s Stabilisation and Association Process.

In sum, the past half-year has underscored the necessity to reconfirm and enhance the European perspective for the Western Balkans as a whole and to concretise the integration roadmap for Croatia as a forerunner. The paradigm shift from stabilisation and reconstruction to regional co-operation and European integration has to be completed. On the other hand, reform progress and political normalisation in most of the region fail to meet the expectations – despite massive assistance and the ultimate incentive of the European perspective. For most states and state-like entities, stabilisation remains the prime agenda. Thus, the key question remains whether Europeanisation and stabilisation are either complementary or conflicting policy agendas.

Download full Paper