Report 'Integration of the Western Balkans into EU and NATO. Accomplishments and Challenges' Monday, 30 September 2013 Sociëteit de Witte, The Hague On Monday September 30 th the Netherlands Atlantic Association organized an international seminar on the Western Balkan countries and their relationship with EU and NATO. Director Bram Boxhoorn welcomed the large audience in Sociëteit de Witte and explained why the seminar s title mentioned the term Balkans. He stated that no matter how the region is named, the underlying issues stay the same and that this seminar in particular was aimed at identifying and discussing these matters. The seminar was divided into two sessions. The first one was about Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia, and highlighted the conditions a number of the Western Balkan countries are in. The second session dealt with the Institutions i.e. the (possible) integration of the Western Balkan countries into NATO and the EU. The moderator of the day was diplomatic expert Robert van de Roer. The first session started with Dejan Jovic, Chief Analyst and Special Coordinator for the President of Croatia. His speech was aimed at Taking stock of the situation in the Western Balkans. He started out by declaring his surprise for the current interest in the Balkans. The fundamental question of the day for Jovic was: Are we going to see the day when the Balkans integrate into the EU? This is not just a question regarding the Balkan countries but concerns the entire EU; it is a question about where the borders of the 1
EU will end and about defining European identity. Jovic regarded the situation of the Balkans as one of progress and he said that the Dayton peace agreement has worked, although he did have some doubts about developments in countries like Montenegro. He was also critical about the member states of the European Union and said that these countries were no longer in a position to teach the Balkan countries about economy and democracy, among other things. In some cases, Europe seemed to be the problem and no longer the solution. But on the other hand he expressed his deep belief that countries will be better off when in the European Union and if the EU does not include them their circumstances will be worse, because being a border state of fortress Europe brings up animosity and nationalism. On the question by the moderator about why Croatia will be better off in the EU, Jovic had a quick answer: security, since there has never been a war inside the EU or NATO. The next speaker was Radomir Licina, journalist and senior editor of the Serbian newspaper Danas, who addressed the question: Serbia and Kosovo: What way forward? He started out by emphasizing the difficult situation with Kosovo by saying that the most powerful countries could not bring peace to Kosovo during 14 years. He said that the level of intolerance in the region is as high as in the late nineties, but it is under better control. The country is still broken, and in need of sponsors. Although Serbia will not go to war to get Kosovo back, progress will be very difficult for at least another decade, according to Licina. Van de Roer asked about the president of Serbia, who is in favour of European integration. Is this possible without solving the problems with Kosovo? Licina was doubtful about the intentions of the president but said that he is not the only one to make decisions about the future. After Croatia and Serbia, the topic switched to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Lada Sadikovic, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Criminology of the University of Sarajevo, tried to answer the question: What way forward for Bosnia? She painted a problematic 2
picture of a country that was a modern state before the war with a working democracy, but is now an underdeveloped state or even a failed state: The government has been degraded into a council of ministers and the Supreme Court was cancelled. Bosnia and Herzegovina is no longer capable of fulfilling its socioeconomic functions and its legal obligations. The current constitution lacks democratic legitimacy and is in need of drastic revision. Van de Roer asked her about her devastating analysis of the Dayton Agreement and asked if we are in need of a Dayton II. Sadikovic said this could be a possibility if the EU will be involved in the process. Dayton was imposed on Bosnia a new initiative should come from within Bosnia and Herzegovina with the help of the EU. Sadikovic called for constitutional changes with international assistance, since Bosnia does not have a working democracy and cannot do it on its own. The last speaker of the first session was Stella Ronner-Grubačić, Ambassador of the Netherlands to Croatia. Her speech was called Croatia s road to European integration: lessons learned and challenges ahead. Ronner made it her task to highlight the positive side of developments in the region. When Croatia entered the European Union it was called a historic event being the first Western Balkan country to join. It is fair to say this changed the architecture of Europe and strengthened its borders. Croatia had negotiated for a long time about the conditions of the acquis (the current EU rules), particularly the chapters about the Rule of Law, which led to positive developments according to Ronner. Moreover, Croatia made many reforms and thus showed that they made the required progress. This is an important signal to neighbouring countries who would like to join in the future. However, for Ambassador Ronner the enlargement process works both ways: politicians of member states have the task to explain to the people why EU enlargement is a positive thing. During the first Q&A session moderator Van de Roer started out with a couple of questions about whether Croatia s accession can serve as an example for other countries in the Western Balkan. Licina and Sadikovic agreed that Croatia can serve as an example but stressed that it is difficult to compare the situations in the different countries. Most of the other questions concerned the rules that the EU has set for accession and popular support for accession, both in the countries themselves and in EU member states. Licina was of the opinion that the scepticism about joining the EU was not that high in Serbia, because 3
currently only two smaller parties are against accession. The history of wars in the Balkans was also subject of discussion. Jovic observed that for the Western Balkan countries accession to the EU is primarily seen as an anti-war project. The first speaker in the second session was Joost Korte, Acting Director-General Enlargement at the European Commission in Brussels. He talked about possible enlargement fatigue in the EU. Korte started by saying that the EU is fundamentally an open institution. It is true that conditions have changed over the years, but only because the EU itself has changed by the accession of new states. Korte remarked that each member state has 110 opportunities to put in a veto during the process of an addition, but they hardly ever use them. Therefore Korte did not believe in enlargement fatigue. Like Stella Ronner, Korte believed that the Commission has learned from every admission it has made. Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary taught the organization some lessons for Croatia s application, like opening and closing benchmarks of the acquis. In October the next assessment of candidate countries is coming up. The 2014 package consists of eight countries. The guidelines will go straight to the ministers of the applicant countries. However, Korte stressed that popular support is very important as well, both from candidates and member states: all countries benefit from it. Korte ended his lecture by stating that he is positive that every Balkan country will eventually join the EU. The European Commission will keep pushing for reforms by the candidate states and if the applicants will fulfil them, he predicted, the next enlargement will possibly be in five years. The last speaker of the day was Barbora Maronkova, public diplomacy officer at NATO Headquarters. She talked about NATO s Open Door Policy and stressed that NATO has been the frontrunner of enlargement. NATO s Open Door Policy is not only aimed at the Balkans, but also at Ukraine and Georgia. Maronkova stated that the Alliance has a special relationship with the Western Balkans, because of NATO s involvement in the Balkan wars in the 90s. The time spent in the Balkans has influenced NATO heavily, certainly in the field of crisis management. Hereafter Maronkova turned to the current enlargement projects of NATO. Montenegro is doing well, but public support for joining NATO and the EU is very low. In Bosnia and Herzegovina public support is very high, but due to the problems Lada Sadikovic mentioned earlier, the country cannot pass the necessary reforms. Maronkova concluded by saying that at every summit, NATO still asks the member states for support and commitment to the Open Door Policy, hereby indicating that the Alliance is not intending to reduce its efforts in pursuit of enlargment. 4
After the two speakers it was time for the second Q&A session. Van de Roer opened the session by asking what the new countries can contribute to NATO. Maronkova emphasized that it was not only about how much countries can contribute on the military level, but also how they can help with tackling new threats like cyber security, terrorism etc. Every country has added value for NATO. There were also questions about the possible accession of Macedonia and Turkey. Macedonia has been problematic but is close to accession when they solve their last problems. Then there was a question about why the communication to the public about the benefits of enlargement is not successful. Korte agreed that there is a communication problem and partially blamed it on the process, which is difficult to understand. However, he also stressed that politicians of the member states should be willing to convince their population of the benefits of enlargement. There should not be just talk of the money that goes to Brussels. This should be put in perspective by showing what has been done with this money and what a small part of the national budget it actually is. Gabriela Kouters & Ciska Schippers 5