LOCAL PRESS

Vucic: Region needs stronger EU role (Tanjug)

The people of the Western Balkans have to be offered something tangible by the EU or the region will have a hard time maintaining its stability, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic warned in a speech at the 8th annual Belgrade Security Forum. “We have to offer everyone in the Western Balkans something tangible, promises must be kept and people have to see that,” Vucic said, adding that a stronger EU presence is needed in the region following the outcome of the referendum in Macedonia on an agreement between Skopje and Athens to resolve their dispute over the name Macedonia.  He expressed the fear that the region will not be able to maintain stability if we underestimate all factors and the people’s will and disappointment.  The Serbian president warned that the EU might no longer be viewed as the kind of dream, the light of democracy and freedom that we aspired to, following the outcome of the referendum in Macedonia. “What was offered to ordinary people was not as attractive to ordinary people as the EU thought,” he said, adding that something substantial has to be offered to the Western Balkans.  As for US influence in the region, Vucic emphasized that new administration has been willing to discuss differing views on Kosovo, which itself is positive. “We have had an opportunity to talk openly and honestly,” he said. He also pointed out that support for EU is falling in Serbia. At the beginning of the century, according to him, it was 80%, and now it is 42-43%. “You do not need to worry about the referendum, we will achieve the 55% of support,” he said. However, he stressed that nowadays support for EU, including his own, is mostly a rational one. Asked whether he wants to go in history as a man who resolved Serbia-Kosovo relations, Vucic answered that it is not a question of history, but of the future. “We have fulfilled every obligation from Brussels agreements, while Pristina did not fulfill the only one it had – establishing the Community of Serb Municipalities,” said Vucic. “This is why I have tried to find a compromise solution, which means that both countries would have to lose something”. He added that, in contrast to Kosovo politicians which constantly raise their citizens’ expectations, he is doing the opposite in his country. He will nevertheless remain ready for reaching a solution, whether it comes in a year, five or fifteen years.

Van der Belen: Serbia has to solve border issue before EU membership (Beta/Tanjug)

Austrian President Alexander Van der Belen said in Belgrade on Wednesday that Serbia has to solve all open border issues before becoming a member of the European Union. “We all know that candidates have to complete their homework and I am appealing for understanding that the EU must insist that open bilateral issues, the question of borders have to be resolved before accession,” he said, adding that the EU has experienced things it does not want to repeat as in the cases of Cyprus and Slovenia and Croatia.  He said that official Vienna will take a favorable view of any peaceful solution for the Kosovo issue agreed by Belgrade and Pristina. “If there is a peaceful, solution agreed by Belgrade and Pristina we will view it very favorably. The accent is on a peaceful solution by agreement,” Van der Belen said after a meeting with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic.  When it comes to Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, he stated that he got an impression from the talks with Federica Mogherini that she supports the view that, if there is an agreement between two sides, the EU, US and all directly or indirectly involved should benevolently approach the consideration of the solution. Van der Bellen also stated that difficult Brexit negotiations do not have direct consequences on accession negotiations of new members, especially Western Balkan countries. He said that the consequences of Brexit negotiations are understanding how difficult it is to exit EU and that our UK friends have undermined those difficulties. The Serbian President said that he was told by his Austrian counterpart that the EU has internal problems and cannot afford to import new problems which means that a solution to the Kosovo problem is one of the conditions for Serbia’s accession to the EU. “One of the conditions for Serbia to become an EU member is for Belgrade and Pristina to solve their problems. No one can guarantee if we will succeed in that despite the will we have shown to reach a compromise solution but we will try,” Vucic said.

Peter: EU will not lose interest in Kosovo even if EULEX leaves (Tanjug)

The EU and other external actors will not lose interest in Kosovo even in case the EULEX mission or UNMIK are abolished, Mateja Peter, a lecturer at the Scottish University of St Andrews, said on the fringes of the Belgrade Security Forum on Wednesday. “Even with the removal of EULEX or UNMIK, if that eventually happens, that does not actually mean that the EU or other external actors are going to lose interest in Kosovo and, in fact, over the past couple of months, as the discussions have accelerated over these questions, a lot of European powers – a lot of European countries individually – ended up talking about increasing their own representation,” she told Tanjug.

REGIONAL PRESS

Preda: Blockade of implementation of election results would not be good message for citizens (Fena)

European Parliament’s Rapporteur for Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) Cristian Dan Preda warned politicians in B&H that blockade of implementation of election results and appointment of new authorities would not be a good message to the citizens and for B&H’s European path. Preda believes that the elections were, in general, organized and implemented well, although there were some irregularities. Preda underlined that now ‘we’ expect the end of the election cycle, after publishing of final election results for all levels, foremost that ‘we’ expect formation of authorities, believing it will pose a challenge because of unresolved issue of formation of the Federation of B&H House of Peoples and politicians’ statements, who announced conditions with that regard. Preda further expects that a solution for simple implementation of election results and formation of authorities will be found quickly because B&H must not lose time on its EU path.

Ivantsov expects process of forming authorities at all levels in B&H to start as soon as possible (ATV)

Republika Srpska (RS) President Milorad Dodik, RS Prime Minister Zeljka Cvijanovic and Speaker of the RS parliament Nedeljko Cubrilovic met, in separate meetings, with Russian Ambassador to B&H Petr Ivantsov in Banja Luka on Wednesday. Dodik and Ivantsov highlighted the high degree of cooperation between the RS and Russia, which is reflected in many spheres and implementation of significant projects. Dodik has expressed his satisfaction over the meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi, as well as the visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and St. Petersburg Governor, Georgy Poltavchenko to the RS. Cvijanovic and Ambassador Ivantsov expect the process of forming authority at all levels in B&H to start as soon as possible. They exchanged views on the current political and economic situation in the RS and B&H, with particular emphasis on the previous general elections. Cubrilovic has said that it is important that the Central Election Commission of B&H confirms the final election results, in keeping with stipulated deadlines, so that government bodies could be formed in a timely fashion.

Political parties present names of those who will represent them in B&H Parliament (FTV)

While the ballots from the general elections are still being counted, political parties presented the names of those who will represent them in the B&H Parliament according to preliminary results. The House of Representatives of B&H (HoR) has 42 members, SDA is going to have 9 mandates of which one is from Republika Srpska (RS): Denis Zvizdic, Adil Osmanovic, Semsudin Mehmedovic, Nermin Mandra, Edin Music, Safet Softic, Halid Genjac, Amir Fazlic and Semsudin Dedic.

Five mandates will be given to SPD, HDZ B&H and SNSD.

SDP: Sasa Magazinovic, Nermin Niksic, Enver Bijedic, Zukan Helez and Nada Mladina.

HDZ BiH: Borjana Kristo, Nikola Lovrinovic, Mijo Matanovic, Predrag Kozul and Barisa Colak.

SNSD as can be foreseen Nebojsa Radmanovic, Stasa Kosarac, Vojin Mitrovic, Dragan Bogdanic, Lazar Prodanovic.

SDS has three mandates which will be filled by: Mirko Sarovic, Dragan Mektic and Obren Petrovic.

DF also has three mandates: Djenan Djonlagic, Zlatan Begic and Vlatko Glavas.

SBB has two mandates, both compensation mandates, and they will be given to: Edita Djapo and Damir Arnaut.

Our Party also has two mandates: Predrag Kojovic and Mirjana Marinkovic-Lepic.

PDP will also have two members: Branislav Borenovic and Mira Pekic.

Five parties will have one mandate each: Independent Block, PDA, A-SDA, DNS and SP.

Dodik and Cvijanovic send telegram of condolences to Russia (Srna)

RS President Milorad Dodik has sent a telegram of condolence to Russian President Vladimir Putin over a bomb attack in a college building in Kerch, Crimea, killing 13 and injuring several dozens of people. “With great sorrow, I have received terrible news on the attack and explosion that occurred at the Polytechnic College in Kerch, where 13 young people lost their lives, and a large number is seriously injured,” reads the telegram of condolences sent by President Dodik.

Over this great tragedy, Dodik sent the deepest condolences on behalf of the citizens of RS and his own behalf. “I would like to ask you to pass our sympathy and compassion to the families of the victims for their grief, and good wishes for a quick and successful recovery to the injured ones,” reads the telegram of condolences sent by the President of RS.

RS Prime Minister Zeljka Cvijanovic send a telegram of condolence to the Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, and the Russian Ambassador to B&H Petr Ivantsov. “I received with sincere sorrow the news of the explosion and attack at a vocational college in Kerch where innocent young people and teachers were killed,” Cvijanovic has said in her telegram.

She has said that thoughts of RS citizens are with the families of those killed. “Please, extend our sympathies and support to the families of those killed and injured. On behalf of the RS government, on my behalf and on behalf of RS citizens, I extend the deepest sympathies to you, the Russian people and families of those killed,” the RS Prime Minister has said in her telegram of condolence.

Government wants to define constitutional amendments together with opposition (MIA)

The government will proceed to the preparation of the constitutional amendments after the parliament endorses the need for this. The best option is that they are drafted together with the opposition, thus having a national consensus, government spokesman Mile Bosnjakovski told a press conference. On Wednesday. “PM Zoran Zaev is in the Parliament for the third day running. All messages are crystal clear. We need to build a national consensus, because as the PM says, the issue is too serious. The Government will prepare the amendments and the best option would be to draft them together with the opposition, thus have a national consensus in the spirit of the Prespa Agreement,” Bosnjakovski told reporters. Regarding the wording of the amendments, he said everything will be made known after the Parliament vote, refusing to speculate on their content. Parliament’s debate on the proposed constitutional changes resumes on Friday (Oct. 19), parliament speaker Talat Xhaferi said after Wednesday’s session in which only SDSM MPs took part. Earlier in the day, VMRO-DPMNE MPs said they quit the debate calling it ‘futile’ and announcing they would be voting against the constitutional changes. Also, they urged MPs of the ruling majority to cancel their speeches and to begin voting on the government motion for changing the constitution. Speaking at the plenary session, SDSM MPs stressed that now is the time all those who have been championing NATO and EU integration to give concrete support to constitutional changes. “Our only interest should be the state. If we keep on declaring who is a bigger patriot and who is a traitor, the result will be a defeat. Our duty as lawmakers is to pave the way of Macedonia toward stability, security and economic prosperity and the only way to get there is through the EU and NATO,” the SDSM MPs said. According to them, the public is swayed with speculation that the Prespa Agreement erases the name Macedonia and that the adjective ‘North’ threatened the identity. “We are faced with making a very important, difficult, unique, historic decision for the future of Macedonia, which will close a years-long absurd dispute with our southern neighbor. The issue is real and we, as politicians, are obliged to address it. It’s time we quit fantasizing about victories and defeats, about triumphs and disasters, it’s time we took a decisive step for the future of Macedonia,” it was noted at the session.

Manoilovski: The state should back any VMRO-DPMNE MP who will vote for constitutional changes (MIA)

Amnesty for everyone and support from the state for VMRO-DPMNE’s MPs who will vote in favor of the Agreement with Greece, suggested DUI’s MP, Branko Manoilovski, at the debate regarding the constitutional amendments in accordance with the Agreement with Greece.

“For several days I’ve been listening to philosophical speeches, but all of that can be related to one issue – to join NATO and the EU. And for that, as I know, everyone thinks we should join. The problem is that VMRO’s MPs, who are wonderful people, depend on their party. I would like to propose something practical. EACH MP who will vote in favor of this proposal should be backed by the state and to guarantee his future. And the second proposal is to give amnesty for all sinners up to this point, an amnesty for everyone. It is cheaper as any other option is expensive. The prison is expensive so let’s give them amnesty, as they have suffered too much and have gone through trials. Think about it and you know we need bread on the table, our kinds to go to school. Be practical my children, I have the right to say that as I’m the oldest” said Manoilovski. GROM’s MP Pancho Minov gave a proposal to change the constitutional name after we enter NATO and the EU. “If our accession is conditioned by changing the constitutional name on part of the Greek side, we will have to condition to change the constitutional name after our accession into NATO and EU. We shall condition the conditioning. I propose, if this is accepted to become a proposal of the opposition. For this proposal, the government should state its stance and this should become a basis for the negotiations between the opposition on a leadership level, and then on the level of all parties. I demand that there are guarantees for the Macedonian identity that will guarantee the statehood of the Macedonian nation” said Minov.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nikola Dimitrov greeted Minov’s proposals, but he thinks that the risk of starting a new negotiating process is too big. “To a certain part, your debate is absolutely worthwhile for further thinking. In the process of negotiations that have occurred in the past years, especially during the last which brought an exit from the dead end, we barely managed to make two ends meet and I think if we open a new process of negotiations, the risk to miss this opportunity including our neighbors is enormous. The Commission for Historical Issues was proposed for the first time on part of the Macedonian side in 2007, as a measure for building trust. Its mission is within one of the heaviest moments where the two narratives meet each other, through facts to try not to cause enemies but to reach a more inclusive process” said Dimitrov. DUI’s MP, Artan Grubi said that the party’s stance is that the only reconciliation that can happen is the reconciliation in Brussels. “You should reconcile that you should be friends with the western world, with Trump, Merkel, May, Macron. It’s only then that you have reconcile with yourselves and with us. Reconcile and vote in favor of” said Grubi.

Mickoski replies to Mitchel’s letter: It is always darkest before the dawn, agreement is unacceptable (Meta)

“This agreement is damaging for the interests of my nation and fatherland, and as such it is unacceptable for VMRO-DPMNE and the majority of citizens of Republic of Macedonia, which was evident at the last referendum, where despite the brutal and violent filling in of the boxes with ballots, on part of people close to the government, still they weren’t successful in their intention to secure basic conditions for the referendum to be considered successful.”

This is what Hristijan Mickoski, the president of VMRO-DPMNE, replied to the letter from Wess Mitchell, the US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, where he asked Mickoski to pledge both publicly and privately in order to open space for VMRO-DPMNE’s MPs to express their will freely about the constitutional changes at the Parliament.

Mickoski’s letter ends with the following maxim “It is always the darkest before the dawn.”

While he thanked for the support in Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration efforts, Mickoski said that the process of negotiations with Greece was manipulative and clandestine, and the referendum question was manipulative.

US State Department: We urge leaders in the Macedonian parliament to rise above partisan politics (MIA)

We urge leaders in the Macedonian parliament to rise above partisan politics and seize this historic opportunity to secure a brighter future for the country, US State Department official told Greece’s state-run news agency ANA-MPA. In regard to the resignation of the Greece’s FM Nikos Kotzias, the US State Department thanked Greek official for his dedicated service to improving Greek-US relations and for his role in achieving the historic Prespa Agreement, MIA reports from Athens. “The US strongly supports the agreement’s full implementation, which will allow Macedonia to take its rightful place in NATO and the EU as the Republic of North Macedonia, contributing to regional stability, security and prosperity. As Macedonia’s parliament continues deliberation on constitutional changes, we urge leaders to rise above partisan politics and seize this historic opportunity to secure a brighter future for the country to become a full-fledged member of Western institutions,” reads the statement.

Macedonia and NATO begin formal accession talks in Brussels (MIA)

Macedonia is launching formal accession talks with NATO at its headquarters in Brussels, where members of the Committee for NATO integration and the Working Committee on Macedonia’s Integration with NATO are paying a visit on Thursday and Friday. NATO extended a membership invitation to Macedonia to join the Alliance in July at the Brussels Summit. However, Macedonia’s accession is conditioned with the implementation of the Prespa Agreement. Macedonia with this session of talks in Brussels in fact opens the final stage of its relations with NATO before joining the Alliance. The NATO Integration Committee operates at a ministerial level, whereas the Working Integration Committee, helmed by NATO National Coordinator Stevo Pendarovski, will work in an operative capacity. Macedonia’s delegation will meet with NATO experts, which will be led by NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy, Ambassador Alejandro Alvargonzalez. The nomination of a NATO high representative to lead the accession talks is a practice applied also ahead of NATO’s latest expansion with Montenegro. Alvargonzález visited Skopje in March 2018 where he met with top state officials. Macedonia has prepared a draft-program that is set to be presented in Brussels.

The primary focus is on rule of law, judiciary reforms, the fight against corruption and organized crime, defense and security reforms, as well as legal issues arising from Macedonia’s NATO membership. Talks will be held in two sessions. The first will address political and defense issues related to the outlined criteria, and the second session will cover issues related to resources, security, legal aspects as well as Macedonia’s contribution to the Alliance’s budget. The tentative completion date of the talks will be determined during this stage of negotiations.

“All of this should happen with the implementation of the Prespa Agreement, in line with the prevailing political will of the majority of Macedonia’s citizens. According to all analyses made by relevant institutions and individuals, our NATO membership will greatly increase the country’s security and stability, while serving as a glowing example of and contribution to regional security, stability, and prosperity,” Pendarovski told a news conference on Tuesday held alongside Deputy PM and Defense Minister Radmila Sekerinska and Foreign Minister Nikola Dimitrov. Pendarovski noted that the process should finish by the end of 2018, considering Macedonia is to sign during January 2019 the accession protocol granting it rights to participate in all NATO bodies without the right of vote – and full membership is to follow after all member states have ratified the accession protocol in their national parliaments. In the case of Macedonia, Greece is expected to be the first member state to ratify this protocol, as soon as our country carries out its own obligations arising from the Prespa Agreement. “Being granted full membership will accomplish our strategic goal, and it will provide a strong guarantee of stability, security, the permanence of borders and safeguarding territorial integrity. “NATO membership is an important prerequisite for economic growth, investment stimulation, better-paid jobs, and prosperity,” Defense Minister Sekerinska said. She pointed out that now is the time when all MPs should show they support NATO membership by their actions and not merely their words.

“All political parties are facing a historic opportunity,” Minister Sekerinska said. “By pressing the Yes button, they will take part in the final steps of our homeland’s 27-year marathon to enter NATO.” “Macedonia’s success is up to them.” Minister Sekerinska said that NATO accession talks and amendments to the Constitution were processes to be carried out in parallel.

“It’s evident that Parliament’s decision will determine whether Macedonia becomes a NATO member in the very near future. It should be clear to all MPs that it’s up to them whether Macedonia takes this chance. “We have been talking about NATO and the EU for a long while, and now is the time to put those words into action. Each vote will count towards whether Macedonia opens the door to NATO,” Minister Sekerinska said. If this doesn’t happen, she added, and the opposition chooses their party interests over the interests of the country, Parliament is expected to announce snap elections, at which, according to Sekerinska, “we will obtain a two-thirds majority.” “Either way,” Sekerinska said, “Macedonia and its strategic goals must win, and we have no doubt it will happen.” Foreign Minister Dimitrov said that NATO membership not only guarantees national security and prosperity but also affirms Macedonia’s integrity and identity. “We took up the responsibility,” Minister Dimitrov said. “Now it’s up to Parliament to complete the process. The stakes are high. NATO, on the one hand, is the most powerful defense organization in the world, but on the other hand, it’s an economic club, because membership comes with many economic benefits. It’s a message that Macedonia is here to stay within its borders.” FM Dimitrov said that if the process should fail, it was uncertain if another Greek government would re-open the issue and under which conditions. He added that almost 94 percent of voters who participated in the referendum were in favor of NATO and the EU. “We mustn’t shirk our responsibility,” Dimitrov said. “There’s no greater patriotism than taking responsibility and having a vision for the future. “We will establish the identity of the Macedonian people through the recognition of the Macedonian language. “We will enter NATO as Macedonians, and together with all our fellow citizens, we will share the fate of our Macedonia and make way for starting EU negotiations.” “The alternative is uncertainty, or worse,” Dimitrov said, recalling NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s many statements as of late that there was no Plan B regarding Macedonia’s membership other than implementing the Prespa Agreement. The NATO chief in early October during his visit to Serbia reiterated that the country was faced with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and it could join NATO only after it implemented the Prespa Agreement. Stoltenberg said that NATO was prepared to admit Macedonia as its 30th member fast only if the democratic institutions in Skopje dedided to fully implement the name deal with Greece. Macedonia’s parliament in 1993 adopted a membership resolution before joining the Partnership for Peace Program in 1995. NATO opened a liaison office in Skopje in 1997. Macedonia become a candidate country in 1999. Macedonia has also completed a record breaking number of Membership Action Plans (MAPs), a total of 17 with the 18th being under way. NATO at its 2008 Summit in Bucharest had concluded that Macedonia was technically prepared to join NATO. Its integration was hindered by Greece after vetoing the accession due to the unresolved name dispute.

INTERNATIONAL MEDIA SOURCES

Blockmans: 2025 is not a realistic date for enlargement (European Western Balkans, by Nikola Burazer, 18 October 2018)

Interview with Steven Blockmans, Head of EU Foreign Policy at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and Professor of EU External Relations Law and Governance at the University of Amsterdam. The interview was done during the Belgrade Security Forum 2018, where Blockmans was one of the speakers.

European Western Balkans: In February this year the European Commissioned released the Western Balkans Strategy. How do you see its importance?

Steven Blockmans: I think it was important as a reminder to the EU and its own citizens, if not only to the countries in the region, that EU is serious about its enlargement policy and about integration of the Western Balkan countries in the EU. It was a good chance to remind everybody about the promise made at the 2003 Thessaloniki Summit and to try and come up with concrete ways and means for steering each of those countries as quickly and efficiently as possible towards the membership in the EU. Of course, by putting down markers on the calendar, as Jean-Claude Juncker did in his State of the Union speech which was recycled in the Strategy you referred to, he gave a kind of half-hearted promise. He immediately disqualified himself when he said “2025 for the front-runners, if and when they are ready and if we are ready”. But, at the same time, the genie is out of the bottle – that year is circulating, the fact that we are talking about it suggests that expectations have been raised, certainly in the Western Balkans. Some key issues, of course, have to be overcome. For Serbia, obviously, it is not only closing the socio-economic gap between itself and, say, an average member state. It also deals with major political issues and the clearest one is recognition of Kosovo, which is a key condition for membership. I think that current developments are pushing to the opposite direction from resolution of the conflict, even though suggestions have been made about border swaps in order to take a step forward in this respect. On the side of the EU, that step is necessary in order to convince the remaining five non-recognising member states to lift their objections and to welcome Serbia and, indeed, Kosovo to the protocol in the future. So, that is the key which needs be found.

EWB: So, you are saying that 2025 is unrealistic for the candidate countries?

SB: Yes, I do, for the reasons mentioned above. Consider this – we are in the year 2018. It is seven years from now. In a political life, that passes extremely quickly. With the rhetoric and policies that are currently being implemented by the Serbian government I do not see this moving fast enough in the direction that should be taken. There are too many concerns at the EU level about the sort of a non-aligned push of the President, who is inviting not only for the closer cooperation with Russia, but with China as well.

EWB: When it comes to some messages coming from the EU which are actually pointing in the same direction, we can mention here the “cold shower” by President Macron during the Sofia Summit in May, when he said there will be no enlargement before the internal EU reform. How do you see this statement? Can it endanger the enlargement perspective of the Western Balkans in the near future?

SB: Macron is stating the obvious from the French perspective. If we look at the statements of previous Presidents, this is no different, for example Sarkozy said the same thing. In that perspective, he is playing for the home crowds, while also sending a signal to the Western Balkan countries that they need to do more in order to convince France to vote in the Council for a membership perspective. Then again, Mr. Macron does not hold all the cards in his hand. Of course, this goes together with other members that are much more vocal proponents of membership. I do not see it as an immediate blow to the accession perspective. I would not want to make the connection to the question whether it would kill the enlargement dream within the next seven years, because in my answer to your first question I already talked about structural issues that would take longer to be resolved, but also need to be resolved.

EWB: Elections for the European Parliament take place next year. What do you think would be their consequences to the enlargement perspective, having in mind the potential strengthening of the far-right parties and loss of “euro-optimism”?

SB: European Parliamentary elections are, as you know, conducted on a national level. It is a two-step approach with no fully harmonized systems and procedures in all 27 member states. This is a bit of a disjointed elections where local and national issues will prevail over any major European or even international ones. Maybe enlargement is an issue in the countries that are closer to the Western Balkans, but it will not define the pre-electoral debates of the candidates. They may mention it, but it will not be a defining issue. Unless, of course, they are seen through the narrow prism of external border management and migration. But again, nobody will run in the elections on the ticket of enlarging the EU – this goes back to your previous question, where the EU stands itself and how it can overcome some divisions that have widened over the past years, not just because of the economic and financial crisis, but more because of the migration and the values crisis which, we see, is splitting EU in several ways. What EU reform would have to do is to, in a way, follow what France and Germany have already agreed to at a summit in spring of this year, where qualified majority voting in the Council was proposed as a much more regular type of decision making in order to avoid the EU collectively being held back on certain issues. Foreign affairs is certainly one of them, but another important thing is cleaning up EU’s own image, which is not as shiny as it used to be. We have seen the rule of law problem emerging not just in Poland and Hungary, but increasingly in founding member states too. Italy, I think, is a clear-cut case. Those will be the topics that will entertain those voters that do care to go out to vote in the European Parliamentary elections.

EWB: Going back to Commission’s Strategy from February, it mentions that Western Balkan countries have elements of state capture, which is quite a bold statement considering the fact that EU was frequently criticized for not paying enough attention to this issue before. Do you think EU is changing its position and has now learned its lesson from the examples such as Macedonia, or these changes are just cosmetic?

SB: I do not think they are cosmetic. You alluded to Macedonia, and in its case this term had already been used in previous reports. It is now uploaded in a more general way, which I think is a good thing because those solving slow-burning crises such as corruption, evasion of rule of law and state capture are fundamental for the preparation of candidate countries for membership.

And the EU is also grappling with these problems in countries such as Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria. It is a proliferating issue of concern to the EU not just in its external, but also internal context. In my mind, reform of the EU and enlargement should go hand in hand as both sides prepare themselves to tackle the issues that have prevented them from better governance.

EWB: What do you see as the main problem facing the enlargement perspective of the Western Balkans? Is it, on the one hand, bilateral disputes, for example between Serbia and Kosovo or Macedonia and Greece, which has blocked the former for more than a decade? Or is more the rule of law, democracy and other internal issues? If you had to choose one of these factors for the main reason Balkans is stuck and lagging so much, what would it be?

SB: That’s the thing, it is not a binary choice. It is rather an “and-and” type of sequence of challenges countries need to overcome. And one has to add to that list the preparation of EU citizens for the prospect of an enlargement at the time when there is a perception that EU is either too heavy-handed, with its regulatory weight stifling economic growth – I do not believe it to be true, we can see that economic growth is back – or is not providing solutions to protect European citizens, look at migration and, to a lesser extent prevention of terrorism.

So, I would add to your list EU’s own preparation. And its level of priority really depends on political “mood music” as it develops from now until 2025 and beyond that. One day, one of these challenges will be perceived to be more important than the other. I think, at this particular time, that would be EU’s own well-being. Whereas, of course, there is an eye to what is happening, or not happening, with name dispute, there is an eyebrow raised to the idea of border swaps. But I think at this moment the more fundamental issue is EU itself. That may change over time.

EWB: The EU has significantly changed its position when it comes to the issue of territorial changes. Whereas previously you could not hear any statements of the kind and all the focus was on the implementation of the achieved agreements, now you can hear it quite clearly that any kind of agreement reached by the two sides is acceptable to EU, which can be seen as a green light towards territorial changes. Why do you think this happened, because it seems so sudden?

SB: It is an easy way out of the conundrum that is otherwise really hard to resolve. If the hardest type of nationalist political leaders can not come to the agreement and are replaced in the end, their more moderate successors will be the object of fierce criticism from the extremes. Also, there is a point that from the perspective of international relations and international law it is an attractive and even legal idea of two legitimate governments coming to an agreement as to how to resolve their border issues, recognition and sovereignty issues. So I see the power of attraction outsourcing this problem to toughest leaders, juxtaposed on the opposite sides has for the EU. It can act as Pontius Pilate – wash its hands and remain innocent. But, it is important what that kind of a deal the leaders struck. And we have not seen enough details to understand what type of deal that is. My worries are related to the protection of the minorities within the districts that are being swapped. There will be people finding themselves on the wrong side of the border, with different religion and ethnicity. So, the problem won’t go away and it will set a difficult precedent for resolving the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you there too wait for local strongmen to reach any kind of agreement, you will be waiting for Godot.