Conversation with Alb UK TV
December 10, 2019
Alb UK TV: Reasons why West European countries have opposed accession talks for Western Balkans?
Valonë Pllana: Minority EU members who have opposed the accession talks are giving in to the irrational fears that have exploded into the public consciousness since 2015. That is, the increased migration and refugee crisis, particularly from the Middle East conflicts and Africa. As a result, the public opinion in Europe has slightly shifted to being more skeptical towards the inclusion of any kind, including European enlargement. Leaders fear that admitting Southeastern European nations, which are less economically developed in comparison to the rest of the EU, could lead to increased migration or a negative perspective from voters of the respective Western European countries. Therefore, the decision to oppose accession is not based on the established Copenhagen criteria, rather heightened nationalist sentiment across Europe, largely positioned on unfounded fear and the belief that isolationism is the correct course.
For Emmanuel Macron, the French public opinion plays a role in his decision to stall the accession talks since he is up for election in 2022. Therefore, he may be considering his campaign more than the overall future of the EU. His rival, Marine Le Pen is running pretty closely in polls with him, summing up his reluctance for negotiations may be based on Macron’s fear and belief that the voters might punish him at the polls in a few years. Thus, domestic politics have much to do with the interrupted membership process than the outlined Copenhagen criteria.
Alb UK TV: Did Albania and Northern Macedonia deserve to be refused the start of EU accession talks?
Pllana: The EU accession negotiations do not guarantee EU memberships, nevertheless, they must take place before new member states are authorized to join.
More than half of the EU’s 28 member states were in support of starting accession talks. France, one of the members opposing the membership, has not provided a concrete reason based on measurable evaluations based on accession criteria. French leadership has stated its concerns are due to a few reasons: Brexit, economic, and migration challenges that the EU is already facing. Adding Balkan nations to the Union could potentially pose a threat since the region has been exposed to wars in recent decades, and the Western Balkan countries are still battling with the scars left from the conflicts. This, however, does not appear to be a sufficient answer for two reasons: Croatia, and Slovenia to some extent, are successful members in the EU as well as part of the same 1990s Balkan conflicts, which France is referencing as reasons not to admit Albania and Northern Macedonia, two countries that were not directly involved in the aforementioned conflicts. Secondly, the whole idea of the Union is to promote inclusion, break down trade barriers and borders within Europe, encourage economic prosperity and growth through openness. By excluding these two states, France and other opposing members are going against the very thing the Union stands for: inclusion, equality, economic growth, and freedom of movement.
When comparing the evaluation with other Eastern European countries that have entered the Union, Albania and North Macedonia have both passed the Copenhagen criteria of the technical dimension, which Romania and Bulgaria received no vote on (indicating failure to meet the criteria) when they were approved for membership talks.
Corruption is another concern expressed by the member states, In recent years. Albania, Kosovo, and North Macedonia have tackled down corruption rates to match those of the other European members, such as Italy’s in 2010 and 2011, a country that has been a part of the EU for decades now. Additionally, the Western Balkan countries have performed better than Greece has between the years of 2010 and 2013; and Romania when it initially joined the EU in 2007 with a corruption index of 3.7 (out of 10). Therefore, the decision based on measurable indicators does not make sense. Criteria where Albania and North MK have passed, Romania and Bulgaria had failed, nonetheless got approved for the next stage of membership negotiations.
Alb UK TV: On Kosovo and the visa liberalization and EU integration
Pllana: The European Parliament, once again, has reaffirmed its support for visa liberalization for Kosovo at the end of September. The Commission had confirmed in July of 2018 that Kosovo fulfilled all benchmarks, as stated on the established guidelines created and given by the EU. It is problematic given that several member nations have yet to recognize Kosovo’s independence, which is also a factor delaying the vote. Despite having met the Criteria, Kosovo has been denied by states such as Romania, Slovakia, Cyprus, Spain, and Greece in support of Serbia.
Their stance on Kosovo is a result of internal/domestic politics rather than EU standards or Kosovo’s ability to meet such standards; fearing that Kosovo would set a precedent, and similar calls for autonomy or independence might take place in these five countries. For example, the large Hungarian ethnic minority in Romania or in the Serbian province of Vojvodina may harbor dreams for a separate state or even the recent Spain-Catalonia crisis.
Other member states, including France and the Netherlands, have also expressed concerns but for other reasons. Mainly it is the fear that Kosovo may produce asylum-seekers, as it did in the late ’90s and early 2000s, following the Kosovo War.
However, this myth has been debunked, and recent reports published by the Schengen Visa demonstrate that most of the asylum-seekers are from 12 other nations, including Kosovo’s neighbors: Serbia, North Macedonia, and Albania.
In fact, between 2017 and 2019, asylum applications from Kosovo decreased by 50%, while in the first six months of 2019, Serbian nationals filed 72% more applications than Kosovars.
Alb UK TV: Why visa liberalization is a necessary step for the future of Kosovo and the EU?
Pllana: Kosovo has completed all steps that the EU had established for Kosovo, and it even exceeded those expectations.
In the past 12 years since the independence, Kosovo has made strides in combating corruption, advancing in human rights, establishing strong institutions that compare to other Eastern European countries.
Realistically, there is no logical reason to stall on the visa issue, and the European Union needs to hold its end of the bargain, as it is losing credibility by not following on promises that they have made time and time again.
It is apparent that Kosovo and its citizens are being singled out. No other nation in Europe has had the long strenuous process of additional and secondary standards being applied historically to their cases.
Visa-free travels come with a responsibility and they generally have a 60 to 180 day period. Therefore, they are not working or residency visas in any sense.
But as Europeans, citizens of Kosovo should have the same standards and freedom of movement as any other European citizen.
Kosovo has seen an increase in tourism, mainly in hiking, winter resorts, and skiing, and it holds the largest music festival in Europe every summer. While other Europeans can easily come and visit Kosovo, this is not reciprocated by other nations.
Visa liberalization can play a role in enhancing economic prospects through tourism for all nations in the EU.
Alb UK TV: Did the EU deprive Kosovo, or did it save it from ablaze?
Pllana: Both. If we are talking about the 1990s and 2000s, Europe with the help of the U.S., protected Kosovo from becoming another Srebrenica or Rwanda. The West assisted tremendously with the supervision and building of institutions in Kosovo. Furthermore, it has helped protect and deter attacks from Serbia since the last war.
EU’s support has fallen short on some parts too.
Mainly the failure to close the gap in accountability for the war crimes between Serbia and Kosovo, in the war that Serbia perpetuated.
This is evident in the data collected from The Hague and other Special Prosecution courts in charge of handling war crimes from the Kosovo War.
The statement regarding war crime accountability was given to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by Dr. Paul Williams, who is President of Public International Law and Policy Group in Washington D.C. He addressed the lack of justice efforts provided for Kosovo war victims and the lack of accountability by the Serbian government for the mass sexual violations and murders committed by the Serbian forces.
The report states that only four out of the seven members of the Serbian regime indicted by the ICTY contained indictments on counts of rape as a crime against humanity.
However, more than 20,000 girls and women were raped during the two-year war by Serbian forces under the supervision of the Serbian government.
These rapes cannot be considered “isolated acts from rogue soldiers” either. The number points out that they were systematically conducted with the knowledge of the Serbian leadership at that time.
Moreover, sexual violence was a tactic, a cheap tool of war used by the Serbian leadership as a strategy to conduct ethnic cleansing through fear and intimidation. Not just in Kosovo, but in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina just years prior in the early 1990s. Therefore, this is not new nor is it something that the international community had not seen before from Serbia.
Other similar investigations of war violence, including some from the Humanitarian Law Centre, concluded that the 940 bodies of Kosovars found in mass graves in Serbia were civilians, not armed fighters.
The burial was an act by the Serbian government to conceal evidence of war crimes by exporting evidence from Kosovo into Serbian territory. Still, nearly all who carried out such crimes have not been indicted and are free.
Nonetheless, even with the lack of accountability, Europe has allowed Serbia to advance in the negotiations for an EU membership, and it has failed to demand that the Serbian government provides justice to many victims of war. While Kosovo has been deprived of free movement within Europe.
As we mentioned earlier, Kosovo has met all criteria and exceeded the expectations of Europe for visa liberalization, yet, Europe continues to fail the young state of any possibility for further economic and political advancement in the EU.
Alb UK TV: Kosovo as a factor in the international arena
Pllana: Many countries view the Kosovo case as a success story of the U.S. and Europe based on the humanitarian relief they provided, militarily and otherwise.
Also, Kosovo continues to make strides. In the years since the war, it has been able to rebuild the infrastructure and the damages acquired from the war, it has built strong institutions in a short time of only 12-13 years to match a few EU member states.
Thus, it is a success story on how democracy can prevail and why strong nations need to continue with the democratic process and assist troubling regions globally.
For Europe and the U.S., Kosovo has to prevail as it is directly linked to the West’s breakaway from the centuries-old norms of international law which have been a global standard since the mid-1600s. This order known as the ‘Westphalian State System’ is a treaty that recognizes each state’s authority and sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs.
However, since WWII, turning a blind eye on countries that commit mass atrocities on their citizens. It is no longer viewed as humane nor acceptable to grant dictators or abusive governments immunity over human rights abuses under traditional sovereignty standards.
But even in times of genocide, ethnic cleansing campaign, and human rights violations – which all took place under Serbia’s Milosevic leadership, the U.S. and Europe received a lot of backlash for intervening in Yugoslav wars.
As a result, Kosovo may not have the needed support to enter the European Union just yet; however, it has the security and protection provided by Europe and the States. The allies will not allow the young state to fail for various reasons.
Alb UK TV: Mini Schengen initiated by Edi-Vučić-Zaev is it suitable for the Balkans in the short and long-term?
Pllana: This has been initiated as a result of the interruption in accession talks. If Western Balkan countries had joined the EU then free passport traveling would be in place already without the need for the creation of a MiniSchengen. So, in that regard, it would be in line with what we are trying to accomplish by becoming part of the Union.
In the short term, it provides an opportunity for a smoother cross-border flow of import/export. It may slightly improve economic development or save money for the respective countries as a result. However, the political aspect may not see a resolution for these nations in the long run, and inadvertently, it may have a negative impact.
For Kosovars, this is not a political nor economic advancement. The Mini Schengen will leave Kosovo further behind in the region and isolated from the EU. Furthermore, MiniSchengen undermines Kosovo’s status that has been in limbo due to Serbia not recognizing its independence and campaigns to block Kosovo from entering the international arena and regional treaties.
Lastly, this is an unfair treatment that lacks equal rights for the Kosovars. The unresolved diplomatic and trade relations, border disputes, and Kosovo’s status have been due to Serbia’s refusal to cooperate and resolve the long-standing conflicts. Therefore, impacting peace and stability in the region, the economic aspects of Kosovo, and the overall EU membership negotiations for the region.
Regarding accession talks and Mini Schengen, access to economic prosperity should be based on the equality and inclusion of countries. All deals where Serbia is a participant should employ principles of political fairness and mutual economic benefits for all parties, including Kosovo.
Alb UK TV: Should we ask for countries to place economic sanctions against Serbia’s arms deal with Russia?
Pllana: The U.S. has already expressed concerns regarding this matter. Matthew Palmer, the American envoy to the Balkans, explained that the U.S. may place sanctions, ranging from visa bans to denied export licenses for Serbia.
European countries may also view this as a provocation by Serbia, or a serious threat resulting in a potential conflict between Serbia and neighboring countries. Therefore, sanctions by the EU are likely to follow those of the U.S., if the arms deal is substantial enough to potentially cause threats of violence.
At the international level, consideration of Serbia being used as a proxy agent by Russia are very likely. It may well be a tactic by Russia to further exacerbate political and social issues in the region; and to undermine, or at least delay, integration of Balkan nations into the EU and NATO. A development that would be considered a win for Russia and its ambition for regional influence. Besides Serbia, in the past years, neighboring countries have experienced Russia’s unwarranted interferences. It is widely speculated that Russia was the driving force behind the tension between Greek-Macedon name disputes, as well as the attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister of Montenegro.
Another reason for Russia’s arms deal with Serbia is to help steer attention away from Ukraine and Syria (areas where the Russian government is heavily involved) and closer to Europe, where both U.S. and European nations would have even greater concerns.
In conclusion, Serbia’s actions depict how dangerous it is when we do not integrate these countries into a full European Union membership, where each member would have to adhere to policies and regulations standard to the European Union, including arms control and deals.
Alb UK TV: Isolating Western Balkans from the EU and the West, is it reasonable to orient and align with China on investments and cooperation?
Pllana: Balkan countries should not look to the east, whether for short-term or long-term alliances.
The Eurozone has already shown us that the more member states trade with one another without barriers and within the Single Market Economy, the greater the protection provided from the perils of globalization.
Therefore, a stronger and more inclusive Europe balances the economic relations, meaning European countries can increase trade with one another rather than rely heavily on Beijing.
It is not reasonable to align with China due to its predatory financial practices, as we have come to learn from cases in the Pacific and Africa. Countries in these regions have not fared well after entering into trade partnerships with China, often getting caught up in the so-called ‘debt-trap diplomacy.’
Not to say that all types of investments with China are bad practices, however, poorer countries that the UN has designated as a no-lending zone or financially fragile, should not be provided loans which countries are unable to pay back. Rather, financial aid and other means of economic assistance should be provided.
China, however, is fully aware of smaller, less-economically developed nations' inability to make good on their loans. On numerous occasions, China has confiscated lands rich in natural minerals, or important ports when poorer nations were unable to pay back Chinese loans. Therefore, further driving countries’ economies down.
Another threat that China may pose is tapping into the health and tech industries, ultimately posing national risks by obtaining crucial data or gathering citizens’ private information. The U.S. and European countries have begun to place restrictions on certain investment sectors and the type of industries they give access to Chinese companies, which are obliged by China’s communist government to turn in all data and information they collect. For reasons enumerated, the Balkan nations should tread carefully when entering into trade partnerships with Beijing by considering alternative motives other than trade.
All things considered, Western Balkans nations should continue to create bilateral economic relations with European countries, even if they are not full participants in the EU.
Alb UK TV: United States policies towards the Balkans, particularly the young nation of Kosovo
Pllana: The U.S. has been against the Greater Albania concept, believing that it will further persuade ethnic nationalism and tensions in the region.
There is a fear that if Kosovo and Albania were to become one, then North Macedonian Albanians may also try to separate and join the Greater Albania, or Serbs from Republika Srpska will want to accede to Serbia, Hungarians in Vojvodina region to join Hungary, and so on.
However, the U.S. has remained a great ally of the Balkan countries.
There are bipartisan efforts to maintain Kosovo's status as an independent state; to continue and assist with peace and reconciliation efforts, democratic process, and protection from larger predatory nations.
The U.S. is the largest contributor of the KFOR, it has assisted Kosovo’s membership in World Bank, IMF, and drafted bilateral economic programs as the largest investor in Kosovo with projects ranging from energy, health, IT, construction, etc.
Contrary to the belief that the U.S. has abandoned the Balkans, which some Russian and Serbian media have stated, the U.S. has kept a close watch in the region and even has appointed a new special envoy for Kosovo-Serbia talks, as well as a special representative to the Western Balkans.
As mentioned earlier, the U.S. has a special interest, that is, to maintain peace in the region, and thwart the continued efforts by the Russian government to interfere with elections and provoke conflicts. However, the U.S. does not support any efforts for the establishment of Greater Albania, Serbia, and so on.
Alb UK TV: Brexit has weakened EU policy. How will this serve Russia, China, and the US?
Pllana: Brexit has made European nations more reluctant to openness, and it has weakened the EU policy overall.
Nationalism and the feeling of “lost national identity” are often portrayed as the reason why Brexit began, with the belief that foreigners are tapping into the country’s job market and social resources, leaving Brits poorer.
This claim could not be further from the truth. While it is true the British public is concerned primarily with housing, jobs, education, and health – the decline in these aspects was not a result of the EU enlargement or admittance of refugees and migrants. Rather negative economic impact caused by the 2008 financial crisis, which to some extent are still felt today.
As countries, like France and England, turn inward and shun the Balkans - Russia, China, and Turkey, on the other hand, can potentially take advantage of a “strategic vacuum” created. While Russia is known to undermine elections, target politicians, and spread false information in the Balkans for decades now, China's ambitions to emerge as a strong global leader in the recent decade adds another dimension to the complicated regional issues.
One plan of action for Beijing, as we mentioned earlier, involves lending money to countries that clearly cannot afford repayments, or purchasing equity for ports – as is the case for Spain and Greece. By doing so, China is building economic dependency for smaller nations to rely on China. This, in turn, provides Beijing with significant control of the political influence and discourse of nations it enters in business partnerships.
In conclusion, both China and Russia stand to gain from the division, rise of nationalism, and protectionism seen in Europe. Singling out the weaker and isolated nations, China and Russia can assert their influence that serves their political interests.
If the EU does not establish unity, China is likely to come in with similar deals disguised under the “mutually beneficial trade deals” and weaken EU/U.S. policies by asserting its influence in the region.
Alb UK TV: The idea of a European army is it feasible, will it work?
Pllana: Establishing an army as a defense strategy to provide common security for the European nations may be a necessary step, as Europe has had to face the reality that the new U.S. administration may not be too keen to support its allies.
President Trump has criticized NATO time and time again, declaring that the European nations should not rely as much on the U.S. for protection. Even though protecting U.S. allies is just as important for U.S. national interest, and necessary to maintain its superpower position in the world.
Macron has stated in a speech in September 2017 that it is up to us to defend what Europe represents, and we cannot blindly entrust to the other side of the Atlantic. He is recognizing the recent U.S. disengagement in Europe, and the need to create a security blanket for the European community under France’s nuclear umbrella.
Prior, Europe relied on the U.S. and NATO for extra protection, which both have weakened in the last few years, while Russia continues to pose threats throughout the eastern side of Europe.
A few examples consist of provoking Kosovo-Serbia relations by sending a Russian-made train from Serbia to northern Kosovo with inscribed words in 21 languages “Kosovo is Serbia.” Which prompted forces from both sides to prepare for a potential war breakout. The most profound example, however, is Russia’s involvement in Ukraine.
Finland has also expressed security concerns involving Russia whose aircraft have flown over Finnish airspace without transponders. Russian special forces have conducted a mock invasion near the Finnish border, and again in 2016, Russia tested Finland by sending 1000 migrants to the Finnish border and seek asylum. Later it was determined that they were not asylum seekers, rather instigation by the Russian government to increase the nationalist sentiment in Finland, similar to Norway or France, through Russian propaganda.
So, threats certainly exist, mainly from Russia and China. For this reason, a united military is not only theoretically possible but may be necessary.
Now how would the European army serve?
It would deliver a quick defense or deterrence strategy against Russia, without having to rely on the U.S. or now the UK since it is leaving the European Union.
The army is anticipated to be one of the largest in the world with 1.5 million service members, which only China would surpass at 2.2 million, while the total of US forces roughly come about at 1.3 million.
Comments