On the outside
29/12/14 14:31![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
htpcl.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsGreetings, ma'fellow overfed procrastinators curious dudes & dudettes! One of the greatest achievements of modern European history is the EU expansion, Jose Manuel Barroso famously argued in his farewell speech as he was stepping down from the post of President of the European Commission. Imagine if those countries hadn't joined the EU, he argued - we probably wouldn't be only worrying about Ukraine now, but also about Bulgaria, Romania, or the Baltic states. Now his successor Jean Claude Juncker has a somewhat different message: the EU is planning to rest for a while from that great achievement. He said it outright that the Union is not going to expand any further for the next 5 years.
This doesn't mean that the association negotiations will be halted, but they certainly won't be completed for the next half a decade. And the message to the West Balkans is that although the end goal remains, the road to it will be slower and harder from now on. The same signal was indicated by the very way the Juncker commission was eventually designed. After some speculation that the EU expansion domain would be dropped altogether from the structure of the new EC, it did remain in place. But the position of the respective commissary Johannes Hahn has more to do with "European policy of neighborly relations and association negotiations" - in other words, the EU doesn't mind talking about expansion without actually doing anything on the matter.
All of this only officially confirms something that was already known for months - that accepting new member states is hardly as popular as it used to be among the European elites (and public), and has dropped towards the bottom of the list of Brussel's priorities. The risk from the EU becoming self-centered and self-sufficient is that it's potentially losing its greatest asset: the incentive to inspire transformation to the better. For the West Balkan nations the danger is that with the diminishing of the European appeal, they could be swayed into all sorts of unpredictable directions - moreover, EU's apparent lethargy coincides with increased interest of regimes like Russia and Turkey to that region. And for my country, the unpleasant prospect is that we'll have to be dealing with unstable and increasingly unpredictable neighbors.
One thing is for sure. Juncker's approach to the expansion tempo has caused shock and disappointment in the West Balkans. But in all fairness, that wasn't that much of a surprise, either. It's become evident for some time that EU's appetite for new recruits has been gradually waning. On the other hand, the candidates from the region are still far from meeting the membership criteria (and this comes from an actual resident of the poorest and worst-prepared EU member!)
Still, the general feeling is that the statements of the new EU leader, even if they're mostly directed at the older EU members rather than the potential future ones, are more harmful than useful. Especially considering that the act of EU expansion has always been a political decision. Sure, Juncker's statements are a realistic assessment that none of the candidates will be prepared to join the Union for the next 5 years. But perhaps it wasn't necessary to emphasize on that fact in such a straightforward way, because that caused many comments and negative reactions throughout the region. That still doesn't change the real situation, but it does show that Juncker's priority is to bring the EU back on its feet before ever venturing into further expanding it.
The reason that "expansion" has become a taboo word these days is the fatigue of both sides in this story. The EU is going through a phase of stubborn introversion due to the economic crisis. And the West Balkan candidates have hardly convinced all EU member states that they could be successfully transformed and "Europeized".
Let's add the bad experience with Bulgaria and Romania, as well. After their EU entry, there's been a new approach in place, which puts questions like the primacy of law, the necessity for an adequate judicial system, the existence of sufficient administrative capacity, and a vibrant civic society, etc - all prerequisites for initiating an integration process, let alone closing it. When these are not in place, the process becomes rather difficult. Now the negotiation chapters that deal with these spheres, tend to be opened quite early in the negotiation process, and the candidate countries are expected to demonstrate that reform and progress in that respect is sustainable, not just temporary. That's no coincidence, it's actually a well thought out attempt to avoid all the headaches that Bulgaria and Romania have caused.
Meanwhile, the Balkan "team" has hardly been anywhere near convincing, either. Bosnia has been stuck at square one in the integration process for quite a while, and it doesn't look likely to move any step forward - not until it starts resembling a functioning state. Kosovo is also too far even from candidate status, despite last year's breakthrough in its relations with Serbia - now its staggering without a government for months again. Macedonia is not only incapable of starting negotiations, but it's nowhere near solving its naming dispute with Greece - but under Nikola Gruevski's reign it's even suffering a drawback in terms of freedom of speech. On top of that, there's the ongoing deep political crisis, a boycott of parliament by the opposition - all prerequisites for pushing any attempt for reform into a dead end. And the most discouraging thing is that due to the sluggish advances towards the EU, the public opinion has started shifting away from the very idea of EU integration. An October poll shows that for the first time, less than half (42%) of the Macedonians believe the EU is their country's right option for development. And this is dangerous.
Granted, the situation might be a little more encouraging in Albania, which does already have a candidate status. And Montenegro of course, which has opened 12 and already closed 2 out of the 35 negotiation chapters. Serbia, which is hoping to start negotiations by the end of the year, also does have some reasons for optimism. But even they aren't completely immune to negative scenarios. One of these is the so called "Turkish way", which is essentially endless and fruitless negotiations where eventual EU membership tends to look more distant and unlikely with the passing of time, until both sides departure from that hope eventually. The other scenario is even riskier, and includes blocking any further EU expansion due to Europe's internal crisis, now other players like Russia and Turkey stepping in to fill the vacuum, gaining more influence in the region and promoting their particular political systems (which, again, is dangerous from a European perspective).
As the Macedonian newspaper Dnevnik recently joked, Putin has assumed the role of a EU commissioner of integration, since every time he visits the Balkans, the EU suddenly remembers that that part of the continent exists. That was indeed the case with Putin's visit to Belgrade in October, where he was greeted with a huge military parade. That visit caused a lot of concern and questions if Serbia hadn't opted for a trickier approach and decided to balance between Russia and Europe.
But there's no doubt that the only option for Serbian prime minister Aleksandar Vucic is Euro-integration. Serbia is entirely entangled with the EU, over 60% of its exports goes to the EU markets, and most of the essential technologies and capitals come from there in return. Besides, Serbia is now surrounded by the EU - most of its neighbors are either already members or at least candidates, or potential candidates (like Kosovo). I don't see how Serbia could ever quit its EU goal - it would be extremely risky for their political elite to take a course that's not related to the EU. Right now, there simply aren't any other options. Or if there are, they look pretty grim. Russia does have a noticeable influence, including economically, and it could attempt to use Serbia as a tool for pursuing their interests. But they can't influence Serbia's foreign policy to such an extent, as to force it to quit pursuing European integration. That just won't happen. But this doesn't mean there won't be attempts and conflicts in that respect.
Exactly how deep these conflicts will be, and what the ultimate result will be, depends on Brussels' willingness and capability of retaining its attractive value. External factors like Russia, Turkey and China have already started using the power vacuum in the region to promote their own interests. In Serbia and the region of Republika Srpska in Bosnia, there are people who've always considered Russia to be a viable alternative to the Western liberal-democratic model. The feeling of an increasing Russian influence and the signals about backpedaling on the West's part could cause a new wave of Euroskepticism.
For the time being, the consolation is that albeit a bit diminished, the EU's attractiveness remains. I don't think Russia or Turkey could be a real long-term alternative to the EU, and neither can they offer something that's comparable to European integration in any respect. But Europe will have to be alert for the potential long-term effects that the "investments" from those countries could have on the region.
In the meantime though, unlike Turkey, the West Balkans are politically acceptable, small enough to "swallow" by the EU, and influenced enough by it. But that could change if the current momentum is sustained and the lack of interest on both sides continues to block the process. If Euro-integration disappears altogether from the region's mindset, that would mean a huge step backwards in terms of democracy, economy and inter-ethnic relations. And that, too, is very dangerous - especially for that region. In other words, the West Balkans could again become a black hole, a powder-keg constantly generating instability, crime and hordes of immigrants. The recent flashes of hostility between Serbia and Albania at an international football match were a reminder that even the shadow of nationalism and ethnic tension hasn't completely gone away yet.
The price of halting the EU expansion into the Balkans would be immense both for the EU (particularly in terms of political costs and in terms of security), and to that region itself. The EU should not be taking the European aspirations of the West Balkan nations for granted forever, and in turn, these nations should not underestimate the importance of being part of the "club". The 5-year pause might not be that disastrous after all - provided that the "Stop" button is never completely pushed.
This doesn't mean that the association negotiations will be halted, but they certainly won't be completed for the next half a decade. And the message to the West Balkans is that although the end goal remains, the road to it will be slower and harder from now on. The same signal was indicated by the very way the Juncker commission was eventually designed. After some speculation that the EU expansion domain would be dropped altogether from the structure of the new EC, it did remain in place. But the position of the respective commissary Johannes Hahn has more to do with "European policy of neighborly relations and association negotiations" - in other words, the EU doesn't mind talking about expansion without actually doing anything on the matter.
All of this only officially confirms something that was already known for months - that accepting new member states is hardly as popular as it used to be among the European elites (and public), and has dropped towards the bottom of the list of Brussel's priorities. The risk from the EU becoming self-centered and self-sufficient is that it's potentially losing its greatest asset: the incentive to inspire transformation to the better. For the West Balkan nations the danger is that with the diminishing of the European appeal, they could be swayed into all sorts of unpredictable directions - moreover, EU's apparent lethargy coincides with increased interest of regimes like Russia and Turkey to that region. And for my country, the unpleasant prospect is that we'll have to be dealing with unstable and increasingly unpredictable neighbors.
One thing is for sure. Juncker's approach to the expansion tempo has caused shock and disappointment in the West Balkans. But in all fairness, that wasn't that much of a surprise, either. It's become evident for some time that EU's appetite for new recruits has been gradually waning. On the other hand, the candidates from the region are still far from meeting the membership criteria (and this comes from an actual resident of the poorest and worst-prepared EU member!)
Still, the general feeling is that the statements of the new EU leader, even if they're mostly directed at the older EU members rather than the potential future ones, are more harmful than useful. Especially considering that the act of EU expansion has always been a political decision. Sure, Juncker's statements are a realistic assessment that none of the candidates will be prepared to join the Union for the next 5 years. But perhaps it wasn't necessary to emphasize on that fact in such a straightforward way, because that caused many comments and negative reactions throughout the region. That still doesn't change the real situation, but it does show that Juncker's priority is to bring the EU back on its feet before ever venturing into further expanding it.
The reason that "expansion" has become a taboo word these days is the fatigue of both sides in this story. The EU is going through a phase of stubborn introversion due to the economic crisis. And the West Balkan candidates have hardly convinced all EU member states that they could be successfully transformed and "Europeized".
Let's add the bad experience with Bulgaria and Romania, as well. After their EU entry, there's been a new approach in place, which puts questions like the primacy of law, the necessity for an adequate judicial system, the existence of sufficient administrative capacity, and a vibrant civic society, etc - all prerequisites for initiating an integration process, let alone closing it. When these are not in place, the process becomes rather difficult. Now the negotiation chapters that deal with these spheres, tend to be opened quite early in the negotiation process, and the candidate countries are expected to demonstrate that reform and progress in that respect is sustainable, not just temporary. That's no coincidence, it's actually a well thought out attempt to avoid all the headaches that Bulgaria and Romania have caused.
Meanwhile, the Balkan "team" has hardly been anywhere near convincing, either. Bosnia has been stuck at square one in the integration process for quite a while, and it doesn't look likely to move any step forward - not until it starts resembling a functioning state. Kosovo is also too far even from candidate status, despite last year's breakthrough in its relations with Serbia - now its staggering without a government for months again. Macedonia is not only incapable of starting negotiations, but it's nowhere near solving its naming dispute with Greece - but under Nikola Gruevski's reign it's even suffering a drawback in terms of freedom of speech. On top of that, there's the ongoing deep political crisis, a boycott of parliament by the opposition - all prerequisites for pushing any attempt for reform into a dead end. And the most discouraging thing is that due to the sluggish advances towards the EU, the public opinion has started shifting away from the very idea of EU integration. An October poll shows that for the first time, less than half (42%) of the Macedonians believe the EU is their country's right option for development. And this is dangerous.
Granted, the situation might be a little more encouraging in Albania, which does already have a candidate status. And Montenegro of course, which has opened 12 and already closed 2 out of the 35 negotiation chapters. Serbia, which is hoping to start negotiations by the end of the year, also does have some reasons for optimism. But even they aren't completely immune to negative scenarios. One of these is the so called "Turkish way", which is essentially endless and fruitless negotiations where eventual EU membership tends to look more distant and unlikely with the passing of time, until both sides departure from that hope eventually. The other scenario is even riskier, and includes blocking any further EU expansion due to Europe's internal crisis, now other players like Russia and Turkey stepping in to fill the vacuum, gaining more influence in the region and promoting their particular political systems (which, again, is dangerous from a European perspective).
As the Macedonian newspaper Dnevnik recently joked, Putin has assumed the role of a EU commissioner of integration, since every time he visits the Balkans, the EU suddenly remembers that that part of the continent exists. That was indeed the case with Putin's visit to Belgrade in October, where he was greeted with a huge military parade. That visit caused a lot of concern and questions if Serbia hadn't opted for a trickier approach and decided to balance between Russia and Europe.
But there's no doubt that the only option for Serbian prime minister Aleksandar Vucic is Euro-integration. Serbia is entirely entangled with the EU, over 60% of its exports goes to the EU markets, and most of the essential technologies and capitals come from there in return. Besides, Serbia is now surrounded by the EU - most of its neighbors are either already members or at least candidates, or potential candidates (like Kosovo). I don't see how Serbia could ever quit its EU goal - it would be extremely risky for their political elite to take a course that's not related to the EU. Right now, there simply aren't any other options. Or if there are, they look pretty grim. Russia does have a noticeable influence, including economically, and it could attempt to use Serbia as a tool for pursuing their interests. But they can't influence Serbia's foreign policy to such an extent, as to force it to quit pursuing European integration. That just won't happen. But this doesn't mean there won't be attempts and conflicts in that respect.
Exactly how deep these conflicts will be, and what the ultimate result will be, depends on Brussels' willingness and capability of retaining its attractive value. External factors like Russia, Turkey and China have already started using the power vacuum in the region to promote their own interests. In Serbia and the region of Republika Srpska in Bosnia, there are people who've always considered Russia to be a viable alternative to the Western liberal-democratic model. The feeling of an increasing Russian influence and the signals about backpedaling on the West's part could cause a new wave of Euroskepticism.
For the time being, the consolation is that albeit a bit diminished, the EU's attractiveness remains. I don't think Russia or Turkey could be a real long-term alternative to the EU, and neither can they offer something that's comparable to European integration in any respect. But Europe will have to be alert for the potential long-term effects that the "investments" from those countries could have on the region.
In the meantime though, unlike Turkey, the West Balkans are politically acceptable, small enough to "swallow" by the EU, and influenced enough by it. But that could change if the current momentum is sustained and the lack of interest on both sides continues to block the process. If Euro-integration disappears altogether from the region's mindset, that would mean a huge step backwards in terms of democracy, economy and inter-ethnic relations. And that, too, is very dangerous - especially for that region. In other words, the West Balkans could again become a black hole, a powder-keg constantly generating instability, crime and hordes of immigrants. The recent flashes of hostility between Serbia and Albania at an international football match were a reminder that even the shadow of nationalism and ethnic tension hasn't completely gone away yet.
The price of halting the EU expansion into the Balkans would be immense both for the EU (particularly in terms of political costs and in terms of security), and to that region itself. The EU should not be taking the European aspirations of the West Balkan nations for granted forever, and in turn, these nations should not underestimate the importance of being part of the "club". The 5-year pause might not be that disastrous after all - provided that the "Stop" button is never completely pushed.
(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 13:09 (UTC)Not necessarily.
Date: 29/12/14 19:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 20:30 (UTC)Huh?
Date: 29/12/14 23:06 (UTC)RE: Huh?
Date: 29/12/14 23:52 (UTC)RE: Huh?
Date: 30/12/14 07:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 07:31 (UTC)Right now, Russia perceives Europe as an enemy. If that stops, perhaps the Balkans would cease being the apple of discord between the two. But of course it is not going to happen any time soon, is it.
(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 13:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 14:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 14:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 18:26 (UTC)Serbia and the Balkans?? If push comes to shove, the Old EU isn't even going to save you. Neither will the USA, probably. I hope you guys know that. Although we will, no doubt feel guilty about it. Maybe even for a whole month or so. I bet John Stewart will have a serio-comic monologue that will get retweeted a bunch of times. #buggerbelgrade #blowbucharest #suxtobesofia But real support? Like with guns? Or lives? Or treasure? Nah. Not going to happen. That would require us to make an actual commitment. Lulz. We elected Barack Obama. Twice. So, make what money you can, while you can. But keep your powder dry and you faith in yourselves. Sorry.
(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 18:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 21:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 07:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 20:09 (UTC)The fact that Obama won his re-election bid simply proves that bread, circuses are the greatest predictors of political success. Hell I still remember the days when all the "smart" commentators were laughing at the absurdity of the idea that Russia might invade Ukraine or some other former satellite if the Georgian invasion was allowed to pass without response.
Funny how that worked out.
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 21:36 (UTC)Which part of "We elected Barack Obama. Twice" did you not understand? ;-)
> Romney might have been slightly less feckless but only by a matter of degrees.
Hence my initial response.
Are you suggesting that "something" had to be done when Russia invaded Georgia? Weren't you the guy who advocated for cutting'n'running from Iraq?
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 22:46 (UTC)Like I said:
The fact that Obama won his re-election bid simply proves that bread, circuses are the greatest predictors of political success.
...
Weren't you the guy who advocated for cutting'n'running from Iraq?
I did not advocate "cutting'n'running". What I've advocated, and continue to advocate, is that a half-assed response is actually worse than no response at all.
In other words, if you aren't prepared to go "all in" you shouldn't fucking go.
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 23:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/12/14 00:18 (UTC)It's the sanctimonious assholes who want "something to be done" but get squeamish when it comes time to actually execute that are weaseling out.
(no subject)
Date: 31/12/14 08:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/12/14 18:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/12/14 18:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 20:13 (UTC)Why not? Snark is the universal language of the internets, is it not? Anyway, I maintain that it speaks to our collective state of mind, in the case of Obama the ambivalence toward confrontation with aggressors and the defense of supposed allies and friends is expressed. That doesn't mean that I think Romney would have had a much better or more courageous position, given the job and the state of the country.
I don't think my cynicism is either forced or faux. The USA is mostly tired of caring about what "furriners" do in their exotic and often truly horrible countries and don't want to be involved with their exotic and often truly horrible cultures and governments. We've had it with thinking we are riding to the rescue and ending up holding the short end of the stick, taking all the blame for a millennium's worth of oppression and misrule. Now most Americans just want to leave these folks with unpronounceable names to their own devices and fervently hope that whatever horrible and exotic crimes they commit stay over there and don't bother us or our stock market over here. To assuage our conscience, we might drone those we can drone with impunity, brown people without lawyers mostly, but beyond that? Eh. All of Eastern Europe is not worth the bones of one Tennessee Volunteer.
No offense. As you may or may not realize, I do not share these opinions. This makes me a warmonger and a imperialist. At least, that is what I've been told, repeatedly. But rest assured, the lessons that the bien pensants have so ardently tried to teach me have been learned by a growing majority of my countrymen. May we all profit by it (amen, amen) but I remain unconvinced. There will be a reckoning. There always is.
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 21:40 (UTC)And it brings nothing of value to a discussion, does it.
> That doesn't mean that I think Romney would have had a much better or more courageous position, given the job and the state of the country
And yet, you obviously have a problem with Obama being re-elected, which implies that the alternative that was available at the time (i.e. Romney) would've handled international affairs better. Care to elaborate how that would happen?
> I don't think my cynicism is either forced or faux
No? But just a couple of lines above, you did say that snark is the universal language of the internets. I remain unconvinced.
Doesn't look like the USA is tired of caring about furriners and their exotic and horrible affairs, because it's continuously getting involved in distant corners of the world, whenever it feels its "interests" are being "threatened". So, unless you're suggesting that the USA shuts itself into its shell and closes its eyes and ears, I'm all ears for other ideas that might've passed through your mind while you were being busy displaying your tremendous prowess at the universal language of the internets that is snark.
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 21:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/12/14 21:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/1/15 11:18 (UTC)Guns? Does everything always boil down to guns with you guys?
(no subject)
Date: 29/12/14 18:57 (UTC)Curious how everybody ignores the Balkans while there's relative peace and quiet there, eh. Which usually doesn't last very long.