The Greek Presidency’s Balkan-European
Integration Process:
Where do we go from here?
05 July, Meliton Beach Hotel, Porto Carras, Halkidiki
CONFERENCE CONCLUSIONS
Over 50 participants attended a conference organised by
the South-East European Research Centre (SEERC) held on 5 July 2003 in
Porto Carras, Halkidiki, Greece. The conference provided an assessment
of one of the priorities of the Greek presidency of the European Union,
the integration of the countries of the Western Balkans into the European
Union. The conference also addressed what can be expected of the Italian
Presidency in continuing this process. Speakers included representatives
of the Greek and Italian Governments; representatives of the Governments
of the countries of the Western Balkans; and academics and civil society
groups involved in these debates.
In his opening address, David Stone, the Director of SEERC,
placed the conference in the context of the Greek Presidency’s objectives
to focus attention on the countries of the Western Balkans; to promote
regional co-operation; and to increase development assistance programmes.
Bob Deacon from Sheffield University introduced one of the key themes
of the meeting; i.e., the importance for the Western Balkan countries
of assuring that they resist the temptation to cede their capacity for
national policy choices to outside actors, be they from above: international
NGO’s, the EU, or the World Bank or IMF or from below: local NGOs, in
the rush for membership. Therefore, the conference highlighted the need
for research to support these Governments in developing their own capacity.
In his presentation Panayiotis Partsos, The National Co-ordinator,
Stability Pact for South East Europe, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hellenic
Republic, discussed the Greek Presidency in terms of the six broad objectives
for the Western Balkans that it had set for itself. He noted criticisms
which had been made after the Thessaloniki summit, but stressed the positive
results: the Western Balkans remains a major priority for the EU; the
European orientation of the area has been confirmed; the Stabilisation
and Association process has been enriched; and the countries of the Western
Balkans are bound to realistic and attainable conditionalities. The summit
outcome was ‘a clear principled declaration’, although ‘a number of serious
issues remain to be addressed.’
George Bonas, of the General Secretariat for Science and
Technology of the Hellenic Republic, focused on co-operation in science
and technology which pre-dated the Greek Presidency, but which was also
a priority of the Presidency. As a clear Action Plan has been developed
in a participatory process, budgetary support will be forthcoming in the
context of existing programmes and in future programmes. He saw work on
science and technology as a forerunner and model for the wider process
of the integration of the countries of the Western Balkans.
Haralambos Kondonis, a Policy Analyst and SEERC Research
Fellow, provided a largely positive assessment of the achievements of
the Greek Presidency, pointing out the different levels of development,
and stage in the integration process, of the five Western Balkans countries.
He suggested that most of the objectives of the Presidency had been fulfilled
and, in particular, the EU-Western Balkans Forum will become an integral
part of the Stabilisation and Association Process. He questioned whether
there were significant new funds available and gave examples of the need
for further rethinking and renewal of the integration process, pointing
out that it was still being led by the Directorate General for External
Affairs rather than the DG for Enlargement.
Gerald Knaus, the Director of the European Stability Initiative
began with a view of the region ‘from below’, focusing on the legacies
in certain areas of deindustrialisation; out migration; and declining
remittances home. There was something of a mismatch, therefore, between
wider social trends and the aspirations of parts of the Western Balkans
for EU membership. He judged the Greek Presidency and the Thessaloniki
summit a partial success in terms of five criteria set by the ESI: with
positive outcomes with regard to the Integration Process itself and in
regards to arresting the decline in assistance funds; partial success
in terms of a focus on social cohesion; but less successful in terms of
changing visa regimes and in liberating large scale pre-accession funds.
Suggesting that “the hard work starts now”, he emphasised the importance
of EU cohesion funds to arrest the decline of parts of the region.
Zoran Jolevski provided an assessment from his perspective
as the Secretary General to the President of the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia. Following the largest enlargement of the European Union
on record, he pointed out that the integration of the countries of the
Western Balkans provides an opportunity for stability and prosperity in
the region. He set out three benchmarks regarding the Greek Presidency:
being very positive regarding the establishment of a clear perspective
on EU membership and somewhat optimistic regarding funds for structural
reform. He was less positive in his assessment of the importance of the
free movement of citizens throughout the continent, a topic that emerged
frequently in discussions. He cautioned against any subsequent conditionalities
and agreements after the SAAs, and suggested that the rhetoric of priority
now has to be matched by appropriate policy measures and instruments.
Nikola Lukic, the Deputy Director of the Department for
the EU, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Serbia
and Montenegro, echoed much of what Dr. Jolevski had said, whilst paying
attention to issues such as organised crime; high unemployment; and low
investment. A clear consensus has been developed on the need to move away
from reliance on donations to self-sustained development. The Thessaloniki
conference conclusions, however, offered no clear road map to membership
and only the possibility of European Partnerships. As such it may be a
‘lost opportunity’ with membership seen as so distant that it will not
motivate political elites. He also discussed the possibility of a more
complex EU structure with more flexible membership and conditionalities.
In the first afternoon session, Silvia Costantini, the Head
of Section of the Directorate for EU Integration of the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs of the Government of Italy, outlined the priorities of the Italian
presidency of the European Union. She pointed out that, through joint
working and many consultations, the Italian Presidency represented continuity
with the Greek approach and, therefore, a ‘qualitative leap forward’ in
EU-Western Balkans relations. She saw the Italian presidency as an opportunity
to keep the Western Balkans at the top of the agenda, whilst emphasising
that the speed of integration lies with the countries themselves, emphasising
the areas of concern regarding each country individually and in terms
of cross-border issues such as the trafficking of people, drugs, and arms.
In his response from an Italian NGO perspective, Davide
Sighele of the organisation Osservatorio sui Balcani, noted the contribution
of Italian NGOs through decentralised co-operation in the region of the
Western Balkans, as well as agreeing that there is continuity based on
the fact that, for Italy, like Greece, the region is of strategic importance.
However, a longer history of Italian legislation gives cause for concern
regarding what Italy’s strategic interest is. In addition, it is unlikely
that the Italian presidency will be any clearer than its predecessor on
the key issues of ‘dates and money’. As a result of internal political
pressures, the Italian presidency risks being less incisive and, in any
case, will have many other urgent priorities. He contrasted the emergence
of ‘new walls in Europe’, as evidenced in visa requirements amongst other
things, with the role of networking, communication and citizen involvement,
in the enlargement of a ‘Europe from below’.
In his contribution, Francois Bafoil, Head of Research of
the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France, used
his recent experiences as the EU expert in charge of the ex ante report
concerning Poland, to explore lessons learnt for the Western Balkans integration
process from the accession of the states of Central and Eastern Europe.
In particular, in the context of limited ability of host countries to
absorb large funds, he raised issues about the effectiveness of EU aid
programmes and how far they make a difference. In addition, he raised
the question of the degree of decentralisation that should be insisted
on in the context of the vast differences in history, politics, cultures,
and size of countries. He cautioned about the danger of funds ending just
when they are most needed and raised issues of the tension between flexibility
in programmes and the need for a European community of similar rights
and institutions. He looked at whether rules need to be changed and, in
particular, how to overcome the lack of strategic thinking and plurality
of providers and delivery mechanisms for EU assistance.
In a round table discussion, Spiro Koci, Director General,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Albania and Gjergj Murra, the Director for
Regional Initiatives and Stability Pact Development of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Government of Albania, raised concerns about the
lack of local ownership of processes and structures of international assistance.
Ljubisa Vrencev, editor of the Serbia and Montengro SEE NGOs web portal
Unimondo/One World, noted the continuing uncertainty of the nature of
the state, whilst emphasising the enormous and rapid progress that has
been made. Paul Stubbs, a SEERC Research Fellow, examined the specificity
of the case of Croatia, which has applied for EU membership but where
there remain tensions between European oriented reforms and the continued
existence of nationalist ideas and interests. The moderator of the session,
Dimitris Keridis of the University of Macedonia, Greece and the Kokkalis
Foundation, raised the wider issue of EU reform and the need to abolish
six-month Presidencies that raised expectations, which, inevitably, could
not be met.
In her closing remarks, Antoinette Primatarova of the Centre
for Liberal Studies in Sofia, spoke of the need to balance quality and
speed in the accession process. This should recognise existing EU constraints
and budgetary commitments, with the need to maintain momentum and timelines
for accession, which can be supported by citizens and political elites.
SEERC is an independent, multidisciplinary, not for profit
research and policy centre founded jointly by City Liberal Studies, Thessaloniki
and the University of Sheffield, UK. SEERC’s mission is to support the
peaceful and stable development of the South-East European region through
research, policy analysis, the dissemination of empirical information
and scientific findings, and through the hosting of public forums like
the conference described above.
Contact: Dr David Stone, Director, SEERC. Email: dstone@seerc.info |
