On November 9th, 2023, the EU Commission presented its yearly enlargement report. The beginning of its communication states: “Today, the Western Balkans, Türkiye, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have a historic window of opportunity to strongly bind their future to the European Union.” The Commission also cited the conclusions of the European Council at its meeting in Granada, at which “EU leaders reconfirmed enlargement as a geo-strategic investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity.“
If these statements truthfully reflect the convictions of today’s Council and Commission, it would be in stark contrast to the lack of progress of past years. On both sides – that of the EU as well as that of the candidate countries of the Western Balkans – there have been no serious efforts to prioritize enlargement. However, the war in Ukraine has returned the enlargement question to top of the agenda, and the Western Balkan countries could benefit from this renewed interest in EU enlargement. Moldova and, to a lesser degree, Georgia could also benefit from this new geopolitical thinking.
The EU Commission also came forward with some additional proposals, especially the new Growth Plan for the Western Balkans. Unfortunately, some of the Western Balkan countries themselves have not taken sufficient steps towards enlargement. This is especially true for Serbia and Kosovo, but also for Bosnia-Herzegovina. In each of these three countries, there are powerful political groups who are not ready for true reconciliation. Supporting economic growth is good, but reconciliation must be a prerequisite for advancing towards the EU.
Nevertheless, the Commission seeks to send some positive signals to aspiring members. There have also been some steps – alas rather small – towards a new enlargement methodology in the direction of a “staged enlargement process.” The inclusion of candidate countries in some EU programs and policies could bring the countries closer to the EU – even before full membership. This could also demonstrate the readiness of the countries concerned to accept the “rules of the game” after their accession. But what the EU needs is a thorough overhaul of the accession process.
The Commission is very cautious when it comes to the question of the absorption capacity of the EU itself. The accession of several countries, including a large war-torn country like Ukraine, will be no simple task. Already now, we can observe the limitations of the EU’s complicated decision processes when it comes to foreign and defense issues. Some countries have repeatedly taken advantage of unanimity requirements to block important decisions or to force an ignominious bargaining process. Most of the time, the EU finds a way out of these unfortunate stalemates, but the accession of additional countries with unsolved issues at home could bring new uncertainties and weaknesses into the EU. Moreover, additional financial support will be needed for any new members at a time when current member countries want to reduce their contributions.
And what about enlargement fatigue, which has prevailed since Croatia’s accession in 2013? Recent research conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations demonstrated an overall improvement in public opinion towards enlargement, as EU citizens seem to increasingly accept that enlargement is necessary. Nevertheless, there remain several countries that are still skeptical towards enlargement, including Austria, the Netherlands, and Germany.
In addition, there has been a rise in populist – mostly right-wing – voters in these countries and others. Such voters and their elected representatives are keen neither on enlargement nor on continued support for Ukraine. Even countries that have been strong supporters of Ukraine, such as Poland, have grown hesitant after grain exports running through their countries challenged local producers or labour laws.
The slight increase in support for enlargement by EU voters does not necessarily signal an easy accession process for aspiring members. The EU as such – and especially the European Commission – must develop an overall strategy for an enlarged but, at the same time, strengthened EU. More creativity and new thinking is needed to overcome the primarily technocratic approach to enlargement. The EU must also explain to its citizens why and under what conditions enlargement can be “a geo-strategic investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity.”
Finally, in December 2023 the European Council supported the proposals of the European Commission- with Victor Orban leaving the room before the vote took place. And so the opening of accession negotiations with Ukraine will remain contested even inside the European Council. But the big tasks are the following: to bring countries from the Western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia closer to the EU, make the EU financially and institutionally capable to integrate new and very diverse members, and convince European citizens of the necessity of enlarging the EU. Personally, I do not see the readiness of the EU institutions to recognize the necessity of implementing such a comprehensive strategy.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 and then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.