Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I found you at a very interesting forum the Belgrade Security Forum where you were
one of the keynote speakers and where you presented a very interesting paper for
the Western Balkans with a really amazing title The Periphery of the Periphery.
Isn't it a bit misleading, given that in the EU as a periphery are referred
mainly countries with economic problems? Why did you choose this title?
The Balkans were the old periphery. Now, the new periphery is southern Europe but
if we look at the informal side of the integration of market relations we will see that,
at least in the banking sector, many of the countries from the periphery are in fact a centre
for the Balkan states. Here we can see the role of Italy and Greece in the financial
system of the Balkan countries, which shows how dependent they are on the eurocrisis.
And this is in fact a process which has been developing for the past 3-4 years and
regretfully the end of the tunnel cannot be seen yet.
Is there a risk for the European integration and enlargement toward the Western
Balkans, given the processes that are unfolding in the EU right now?
The question is complex because formally I think that enlargement is continuing.
In the last year we saw many steps toward the integration of the Western Balkans
Croatia, Montenegro started negotiations, Serbia scored progress, even Kosovo
is finally in the end of the queue but in fact they are moving forward. But if we look under
the surface, what is going on in these countries, we see a deepening economic
crisis, reforms have not progressed that much, although the entire societal
consent, the consensus on the occasion of accession I think is maintained
at very decent levels. I think there's a loss of speed in the direction of EU.
What is this due to less involvement on EU's part, weakened
pressure because of the problems EU itself has or other reasons?
There are two reasons which are in something like a vicious circle. On the one hand,
the EU agenda is elsewhere. It is clear that the eurocrisis prevails the discussions in Brussels.
In the meantime, the European Commission is moving the process forward for good or bad but it is
a kind of a lonely player at the moment the big countries are focused elsewhere.
But I think that the elites in many Balkan countries take advantage of the situation,
of this timeless situation, to talk about eurointegration but in fact not to implement it
in essence, to talk with these phrases that we are used to and are already well mastered
here in our region but when it comes to applying in practise and to reforming
sectors from state governance and the economy they slow down the pace.
And here Croatia is a very good example after the price of genuine reforms was seen,
including with the career of Ivo Sanader if the price is in fact that
politicians will have to one day face justice, this sends a message
to the other countries from former Yugoslavia that if they handle seriously
these reforms this is what can happen. So, in a paradoxical way, I think
that this is what delay is due to success in some countries sends a message,
a warning to other nations. And in fact this timelessness in this interval
we see a kind of slipping in one place, which is good for the elites.
But I don't see any special support for more essential reforms, an impetus
from below either, regretfully.
And do you think there should be an impetus from the EU, no matter that ... you mentioned
the Commission somewhat in a sense 'for good or bad' but what does this mean don't you trust
the Commission that it can handle this or is it not sufficient?
It is not sufficient. I think that the Commission is doing everything possible at the moment.
It is even interesting how innovatively it uses the empty spaces to move
the agenda forward and forward. Even now I was recently in Pristina and there Stefan
Fule had a speech, in which he unnoticeably changed the way of speaking about Kosovo
for the first time he used the phrase not "membership perspective" but "membership" for Kosovo.
In other words, in such an environment, the Commission is trying to do what's possible
but as the system of decision-making in the EU weighs too much on the member states
in order for a process to move forward, there has to be political will, which should come
from the big capitals but also from the neighbouring countries of the Western Balkans.
So, without the member states the process cannot be full.
There's this mantra, which at the moment, especially the institutional leaders
of the EU use write your homework, implement reforms, we are with you all the time
is this not a bit of a signal, a two-edged knife? On the one hand, we are
with you but on the other until you're ready don't knock on our door?
Yes, this is obviously so. It has always been that attitude in Western Europe, we shouldn't deceive ourselves.
But on the other hand, there are countries where there is no sufficiently strong political will
or a capacity to implement reforms. In fact, this type of dynamics, this type
of interaction, the outcome is quite the opposite slipping and stagnation.
And I think that something like this is happening now. Of course, it is good that we are in Serbia
and having this conversation because this is one of the critical points in the region at the moment
the biggest country so it will probably set the trend. The government that is yet to take
the bridle, to what extent will it be ready to move the agenda forward for the reforms
and the Europeanisation but even more, as we see at this conference, this is one of the questions
that hangs in the air. It is not clear yet where the country will go to.
It sends quite mixed signals ...
Correct on the one hand we see assurances for Brussels and the big member states
that the current line will be continued but on the other hand there are quite worrying decisions,
for example in connection with the Serbia's central bank which scared the markets
a lot and led to downgrading Serbia's rating. On the other side, there are many
financial problems in the fiscal area, for example. So, Serbia may be the key country
at the moment, it is very important what direction will it take whether it will consolidate
the situation and after all will lead the country toward eurointegration
or will it continue, of course, the process of negotiations with Kosovo.
Do you think that it is possible what is going on in some not that new anymore
EU member states, like Romania especially, Hungary including and may be in Bulgaria too
we should finally recognise that we are going toward such an old method of governance,
to have an impact on the process of reforms and therefore on the European integration here?
I think that the processes are not being followed that closely but in general these problems,
the domestic political and economic ones that we see, especially in Hungary and Romania lately, are quite visible
and they undermine the main narrative the EU offers that in fact European integration leads to shortening
the distance between these peripheral countries and societies and the developed democracies in Western Europe.
And also Greece is a very indicative example. This is, I think, the foundation, the backbone
of the EU's attractiveness this type of argument ...
In other words, it can be perceived as a failure of the EU?
Yes. In fact the EU needs success stories that the integration model
works and leads to increasing economic and political standards.
As far as we see, it is precisely the opposite process that is taking place in some of the newcomers
or let's call them provisionally the newly accepted member states this reflects on the image I'd say.
But still, this has not impacted the public opinion in the Western Balkans yet,
especially in some countries the EU still enjoys solid support.
It is even an irony but it is a kind of long-term trend that Croatia, which has
always been somewhat close in terms of implementing the standards,
is in fact the most eurosceptic country in the region, and remains such.
In this thread of thoughts, how do you see the idea of the Polish Institute
for International Relations the Visegrad group to take a more active role
in the Western Balkans because there are countries that are a good example?
I think that this is a good idea in general. Like I said, one flaw of the process
at this stage is that the member states lack the political moment the technocratic element
is in place but after all this is what the European Commission does, moving the process forward
but the Council is somewhat missing. If the impetus could come from a group of countries,
be it in Central Europe or elsewhere, this will be a good development and, of course,
on the lead should be such countries that have something to show, they should again
underline that enlargement is in fact a successful project of the EU and has worked
with them in order that self confidence return, which was vivid in the period between
2004 and 2008 when the situation slipped economically. So, maybe positively
but let us not delude ourselves without the big member states this cannot happen.
Let the initiative come from them. And let me mention one more thing in the end of the day
Poland is such a central case. We see that there economically the situation
is not very positive. It is not clear whether the Polish success story will continue.
It is not clear whether it is due to the current government?
Yes, or whether there won't be a deterioration of the economic situation in Poland, an aggravation of the situation.
This is a bit speculative, of course, but it is not impossible the previous party
Law and Justice, of Kaczynski, to come back to power. So, for Poland now
is the time to take advantage of what is left from its positive
image as the good illustration of the success of enlargement.
And where are Bulgaria and Romania in this picture?
Can it be said that, for instance, bad example is in fact a good teacher?
Yes, this is the European Commission's argument that what they have learned in the process
of enlargement with Bulgaria and Romania, they have drawn the lessons and have changed the methodology
of the enlargement process. I am a little bit sceptic as to what extent would the change
of process, for example starting with these chapters related to the reform of the judiciary,
wold have a real effect but on the other hand, in former Yugoslavia,
again for good or bad, Bulgaria's and Romania's shares have never been very high.
They have always been underestimated. Many times unjustified because, after all,
many things have happened in Bulgaria and Romania. I always give the example
of the level and quality of the Internet, which is a success for these countries.
They still, because of their domestic problems, find it difficult
to show themselves as a positive example as in Brussels so in the neighbourhood.
But there are not very high expectations to them either. So, Bulgaria and Romania
the first thing they can do, if they want to activate their policies and form
the Brussels's approach, is to show, by reforming themselves and raising their domestic standards,
that the process of enlargement is not a lost cause and that it, in the end of the day
does lead to some results and does deliver. Otherwise, at the moment we are in
a situation where there is some ambition, but in fact we are a negative example, unfortunately.
Thank you very much.