Both Ukraine and Moldova are currently contenders for membership in the European Union. Taking a look at the Balkans demonstrates that this might lead to a halt and dissatisfaction.
Both the Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova are currently considered to be formal applicants for membership in the European Union. In light of the possibility of membership, a demonstration of solidarity and support need to be extended, notably to the city of Kyiv. However, what kind of a guarantee does this make to the nation that is valiantly fighting itself against the encroachment of Russia at the moment? Which difficult path lies ahead for Ukraine (and Moldova) right now? It is worthwhile to take a look at the republics of the western Balkans, who have been dealing for the last two decades with the excitement and frustration of the possibility of admission.
Despite the fact that Montenegro and Serbia have been talking for close to a decade, there has been no progress made on fundamental problems concerning the accession process. These fundamental concerns include the rule of law and the fight against corruption. North Macedonia and Albania have satisfied all of the requirements for the beginning of accession discussions; nevertheless, there has been no progress made owing to the fact that Bulgaria, a state that is already a member of the EU, has used its veto power for identity-political reasons. Even the conference that took place on June 23 was not successful in breaking the embargo. While Bosnia and Herzegovina must fulfil additional conditions to be considered for candidate status, Kosovo must struggle with the reality that there are still five EU member states who do not recognise the independence of the nation. In addition to this, it is the only nation in the Balkans that continues to need visas in order to join the EU, despite the fact that all of the requirements for doing so have been satisfied.
There is no doubt that all of the nations that make up the western Balkans are a part of Europe and ought, at some point in the future, to achieve full membership in the European Union. And there is no doubt that change is necessary in each of these states, not the least of which in the battle against organised crime, the fight against corruption, the rule of law, freedom of the media, and in a variety of other areas. Taking action to solve these problems is in the best interest of the people living in these nations and the long-term viability of their communities. The European Union Beit The entrance process provides a clear timeline, pressure from the outside, which is necessary for it to function, as well as resources and support for the reform process. Without this pressure, it would not work. At the same time, the objectives of these attempts to reform often compete with the personal interests of the political elite in the nations whose citizens are burdened with the responsibility of bringing about these changes. They would be able to eliminate all of their sources of power and money.
There is an active discussion going on among the political advisors and those responsible about how the process of the EU contributionstepping can be made more effective in order to actually deliver the desired results rather than just produce standstill and frustration. One example of this discussion is the EU contributionstepping process. Some people take a more practical approach to this discussion, putting more emphasis on economic cooperation as the solution that genuinely delivers results. It is possible to accomplish gradual integration into the European Union via the elimination of trade obstacles, increased integration into the value chains of the EU, foreign investment in the Balkans, the creation of employment, and economic growth. Nevertheless, in order for this to be effective, there must first be legal clarity and an administration that is able to carry out its duties. Complete membership is still the goal for the long term.
However, contentious issues such as the resolution of regional conflicts, democratic participation and media freedom, and political engagement in the European Union need to be shelved for the time being. This is necessary in order to make progress in these areas. Nevertheless, it is possible to make headway by breaking the task down into a series of more manageable tasks that already deliver a larger return on investment. It has been suggested, for instance, that the applicants be granted early access to the substantial EU structural funding so that they may play catch-up with the member states at a more expedient rate.
Others participating in this discussion have suggested that a new geopolitical framework may be used to establish the political component of expansion. Different iterations of a geopolitical community have been introduced into play as a result of the efforts of Council President Charles Michel and French President Emmanuel Macron. This community, which should send a clear signal of solidarity in times of escalating geopolitical conflicts regardless of membership in the European Union, should also apply to states in the western world Balkans as well as the Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, and it should be open to all of these countries. Without offering an alternative to complete membership in the European Union, as is provided to make the reader feel better.
And lastly, a portion of the discussion asks for the European Union to return to its essential tenets, sometimes known as “back to the basics.” The principles of democracy, respect for human rights, and the operation of a market economy are outlined as essential components of the EU accession process in the Copenhagen criteria. To give the EU accession process the transformational force it requires to demand significant changes in the candidate countries, a return to these core requirements in particular is the only thing that can give it that power. In the same way, the process of internal change inside the European Union has to be guided by such a return to the roots of the European Union in order for the European Union to once again shine brightly.
Without a healthy dose of pragmatism, there is no way that progress can be made. However, the far-reaching contradictions that exist between a somewhat kleptocratic elite and the reform requirements of the EU accession process cannot be overcome only via the application of common sense. The leaders of state and government have not been able to find any inspiration in the hazy conceptions of a geopolitical community that were disseminated in the days leading up to the summit on July 23. It would seem that stronger coalitions and norms that can withstand greater pressure are required. However, the return to the fundamentals of the EU, as unavoidable as it may be, must not result in the states in our neighbourhood becoming stuck in an eternal waiting room. These states have lofty claims that, to tell the truth, not all member states will ever be able to meet, and simply trying to meet these claims is not sufficient.
The democratisation of societies is one factor that may play a role in the resolution of this challenging scenario in the process of joining the EU. Only if it is successful will there be public support for EU membership and the essential changes among the populations of the countries involved. Only then would it be possible to build up the internal pressure necessary to break the blockades. Political partners who advocate for this accession process, provide an explanation of the benefits of membership, and defend the required efforts are essential for achieving this goal.
Co-determination in the workplace and the existence of trade unions, for instance, are both components of the democratisation of society, which extends much beyond the procedures envisioned for the EU membership application process. Too often, the European Union has placed its trust in political forces that have guaranteed them that they would give priority to combating corruption in their nations and replace the old elites, only for those political forces to afterwards obtain access to the power meatpots themselves.
We need partners in the countries that not only promise stability and control, but who also measure their actions by our values, so that the prospect of Ukraine’s accession does not become a code for frustration and disappointment, as it did in the Western Balkans. In order to avoid this, we need partners in the countries that not only promise stability and control, but who also measure their actions by our values. This obviously applies not only to the group of countries who are now participating in the process of EU integration, which has reached the number of nine at this point, but it also applies to the nations that are currently acting as blocks inside the EU.
The author Dr. Max Brandle is now serving as the head of the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation office in Belgrade. His most recent position was that of head of the FES office in Croatia.
+ There are no comments
Add yours