O European integration, the problems it faces West Balkan, as well as the perspectives of membership, but also the European and German attitude towards official Belgrade, as well as failures on both sides, the director of the office of the "Heinrich Bell" Foundation (HBS) in Belgrade, Gert Rohrborn, speaks to "Vreme".
WEATHER: How does the process of EU enlargement towards the Western Balkans currently look from your perspective? Do you think that Montenegro will really be the first country in the Western Balkans to join the EU??
Gert Rorborn: It is important to understand that the European integration process is, in its essence, a political-philosophical project that was launched in order to, after the destruction caused by the world wars, ensure lasting peace and establish humane social relations based on prosperity and the achievement of mutually defined interests. That idea should be distinguished from its concrete historical realization - the European Union. The EU as we know it is only one of the possible forms of that integration. The European Union needs the countries of the Western Balkans because it faces open destabilization attempts by China, Russia and the USA. In this sense, the process of enlargement to the Western Balkans is a great chance for the EU to return to the initial idea of creating an area of peace and prosperity.
On the other hand, the countries of the region need the European Union so that they can survive and progress socially, economically and politically through deepened regional cooperation. We have the case that a few days ago, the European Union adopted a financial package for the period 2028-2034, which also includes Montenegro. This act represents another step closer to its membership in the EU. During this period, Montenegro will receive around 3,2 billion euros. For example, taking into account the population and size of Montenegro, it would be like if Serbia received 32 billion euros. The inclusion of Montenegro in this financial package is a sure indication that it is the next member of the EU.
Is the extension methodology, with gradual integration and clusters, gave concrete results? Are clusters opening?, that is, they close according to merit or are political messages?
The methodology of negotiations within the framework of the enlargement of the European Union has been developed over decades based on the experience gained. Given the complexity and extent of adaptation to the EU acquis and specific policies of the European Union, I can only welcome any form of structural relief in the organization of the process if it really makes this herculean task easier for candidate countries. The example of Montenegro seems to confirm this.
Another question is to what extent the statements of EU politicians during the opening of clusters are a kind of political messages, in contrast to their closure, which would have to be based on clearly fulfilled criteria. In this regard, the European Commission has an obligation, both towards the societies of the EU member states and towards the candidate countries, to show unequivocally that the process is consistent and based on clear rules. Otherwise, mutual trust is broken - the most valuable capital of European integration, which is far more important than the economic benefits arising from economic cooperation within the EU. The foundation of which I am the director therefore continuously emphasizes that the clusters are closed according to their merits and with its activities persistently reminds the governments of the countries of the region and EU institutions to respect this rule. The foundation has repeatedly warned the authorities in Montenegro about the harmful consequences of the memorandum with the United Arab Emirates, which contains provisions according to which certain projects and land can be assigned without conducting public procurement, public tenders or other procedures prescribed by national legislation, which enables the circumvention of standards of transparency and competition. We recently warned about this again in the analysis of the corrosive capital of Muhamed Alabar, involved in the Belgrade on the Water project, which planned the construction of luxury resorts on the protected area of Velika Plaža in Ulcinj.
Is Serbia closer to membership today than it was five years ago or is the accession process stagnating? Many consider Serbia's desire to join the EU to be insincere...
Unfortunately, it is not closer. Although formulated in an extremely diplomatic manner, the European Commission's reports on progress are quite a sufficient indicator. So far, it has not happened that as many as five EU member states block a candidate country from opening Cluster 3. This is a consequence of Serbia's relationship with Russia, as well as the absence of the rule of law and a high level of corruption. The EU enlargement process itself was at a standstill until recently, but since it was finally restarted, Serbia has only taken significant steps backwards. Even some reforms that were adopted in the field of justice and gender equality are now suspended in different ways, which speaks in favor of the fact that these were only tactical moves by the authorities. Therefore, it does not surprise me that today many citizens believe only to a very limited extent in the European aspirations of the authorities in Serbia. Under such circumstances, they would find it difficult to understand the European Union's decision to open Cluster 3 despite the absence of key reforms. There has never been a more favorable geopolitical moment for enlargement, and the Serbian authorities, unfortunately, are missing that opportunity, which probably won't happen again for a long time. I am concerned that after the entry of Montenegro, and perhaps Albania, there will be a longer pause in the process of expansion to the rest of the region. Namely, there is a clear political decision to admit at least one country of the Western Balkans to the EU by the end of the mandate of the current European Commission.
On the other hand, In the last few years, Montenegro has made a serious step forward in terms of EU integration.
However you look at it, the decisive factor is not just a favorable historical moment. The current progress is the result, on the one hand, of the long-term dedicated work of successive governments, as well as the tireless engagement of civil society organizations and dedicated citizens. Compared to Serbia, decision-makers in Montenegro perceive civil society organizations as partners and treat them with much more respect. On the other hand, the concrete support that the Montenegrin government receives in its efforts from the European Union and individual member states, including Germany, cannot be overlooked. The progress so far represents the joint success of various actors, who, despite certain differences in interests, truly strive for the same goal.
Does Serbia perhaps see its chance in potential structural changes in the EU and the introduction of members without veto rights?
This idea is currently considered one of the possible options for preparing the European Union for an enlargement that would go far beyond the admission of Montenegro itself, and this discussion is really necessary. However, it does not yet offer a satisfactory answer to the two basic problems. First, the European Union has long been trapped by the principle of unanimous decision-making. This will not change due to the change of government the day before yesterday in Poland or yesterday in Hungary, because tomorrow Italy, France or Germany may present the same problem. Second, there cannot be "second-order membership", that is, participation exclusively in the EU single market and the Schengen area, as proposed in the document presented by Vučić and Rama, because there are no "second-order EU acquises". This is precisely why I believe that the European Union should bravely tackle its own reconstruction in the spirit of the integration process, with the inclusion of the entire Western Balkans. Otherwise, the so-called sovereignists, in cooperation with the United States of America, Russia and China, will undermine the European Union from within.
To what extent do economic interests influence the attitude of Germany towards the authorities in Belgrade, bearing in mind the frequent criticism of the state of democracy and the rule of law in Serbia?
Criticism of the government in Serbia from Germany most often comes from the Greens, liberals and social democrats. They are harmonized with the positions of similar political options from other EU member states. German engagement in Serbia is not only guided by its own economic interests, but is also based on historical responsibility. The international cultural work of the Goethe Institute and the network of political foundations for the promotion of democracy, to which the "Heinrich Bell" Foundation also belongs, are financed from the German state budget. Also, Germany supports economic cooperation in the field of modernization carried out by the German-Serbian development partnership GIZ, as well as concrete measures to improve the professionalization of state administration. However, if certain economic interests lead to the undermining of the rule of law, transparency and the European integration process due to the application of an exclusively economic approach without considering the social consequences - then we are facing a serious problem of credibility. The foundation has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the rule of law as a basis for strategic projects in which Germany is somehow involved. This is one of the reasons why we were very critical of the Jadar project from the beginning.
Do you think that the geopolitical context led Germany and the EU to be more lenient towards certain moves by the authorities in Serbia than they otherwise would have been??
I don't get the impression that much has changed in this regard in the last ten years: the relationship has been quite mild. Germany, under different governments, has for years been strongly involved in Serbia and in the process of normalizing relations with Kosovo, in a stabilitocratic spirit. The Berlin process, despite everything that still needs to be done, represents a great achievement, but the EU must not stop there. However, I can very well understand why many people throughout the region are gradually losing confidence in the European Union. While Montenegro and Albania are currently closest to membership, Serbia and Kosovo are still hostage to unresolved relations, Bosnia and Herzegovina to their own internal institutional blockade, while North Macedonia is hostage to the demands of Greece and Bulgaria. All the mentioned countries are not able to progress in enlargement because of these problems. This is precisely where I see the responsibility of the EU institutions, which should be more seriously involved in overcoming these challenges. I am of the opinion that citizens in the region do not reject European values per se. If we take Serbia as an example, it seems to me that the actions of the EU and Germany so far have largely distanced the European Union from the citizens of this country. I wish that would change soon.
photo: marija stojnic...
Does the Foundation "Heinrich Bell" cooperates with institutions in Serbia? What is the situation in Montenegro?, is there cooperation with institutions at a higher level?
As I have already pointed out, in Montenegro, government representatives show openness to exchange and suggestions. In that country, we regularly cooperate with representatives of institutions on various projects. For example, we opened the European Mobility Week with the president of the Assembly of the capital Podgorica. It is difficult to imagine a similar situation in Serbia where we open an event together with Aleksandar Šapić. Although there is a helping hand from our side, cooperation at the local level is almost impossible because the government perceives us as agents of foreign influence. But what are Chinese companies then? Is Jared Kushner an investor from Serbia who advocates for Serbian interests? Unlike the aforementioned actors, our work is completely transparent. We care about the democratic competition of ideas and practical proposals. We support what we consider to be right, and we criticize what we consider to be wrong - regardless of who is doing it, and whether they are doing it in Germany, Serbia or anywhere in the world. If someone doesn't like our ideas, we perceive it as an incentive to explain them even better and point out concrete advantages. This applies, for example, to our position that renewable energy sources are significantly cheaper, more ecologically sustainable, more democratic because they encourage the decentralization of energy production and, in addition to all that, safer than nuclear energy. I don't see us as eternal critics, as we are often portrayed. On the contrary, we offer an alternative economic, ecological and social development model that establishes democracy, peace and prosperity, taking care not only of one part of the planet, but of the Earth as a common home.
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
