The Western Balkans peace: Europe’s unfinished mission

NOVEMBER 2015 marks two decades since the Dayton Peace Accords set the Western Balkans states on their long path to eventually ending their bloodletting, Europe’s worst since the Second World War, writes World Review expert Professor Dr Blerim Reka. The success of the war-quelling process imposed by the European Union and Nato has proved limited. The root causes of the Balkan wars remain. No peace-building followed the silencing of the guns, and EU actions to help the region’s new states integrate into the European unification project were half-hearted at best. The goal of post-conflict reconciliation has not been achieved in the Western Balkans, the multi-ethnic state model is not functioning and economic growth is not sufficient. As a result of these failures, the region now poses a risk to EU security as its nations become increasingly receptive to geostrategic alternatives and economic offers from other directions, especially from Russia. In June 1999, the EU launched the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP) for the Western Balkans. Brussels’ commitment to help stabilise the region and create a free trade area there, with the aim of eventual EU membership for the states involved, was strengthened at the EU-Western Balkans Thessaloniki Summit in June 2003. The deal offered to the former combatants was simple: association in exchange for stability. To date, however, the transaction has not materialised. On October 27, 2015 Kosovo became the last Balkan state to sign up to SAP, but so far only Croatia has been admitted into the EU (in 2013). Nato’s ‘open door policy’ is largely over, too: only Albania managed to join the alliance in 2009 (along with Croatia). At least one EU member is paying attention to the region’s alarmingly worsening condition. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reminded her fellow Europeans that the tragedy of the First World War was ignited in the Balkans and declared that the region’s accession process must be put back on track. In August 2014, the chancellor personally chaired the annual EU-Western Balkans Summit in Berlin. While that summit was largely political, in the following year in Vienna it focused on the economic part of the problem: 7 billion euros were pledged for 35 regional energy and infrastructural projects. Also importantly, two bilateral border demarcation agreements – Kosovo-Montenegro and Montenegro-Bosnia and Herzegovina – were signed during the Vienna summit. Symbolically, these were important steps because the region is rife with border conflicts. Serbia has disputes with Croatia and Macedonia, while Croatia has border disagreements with Montenegro and Slovenia. Recently, Greece raised a border issue with Albania. Greece also questions the Republic of Macedonia’s right to use such a name and Bulgaria doesn’t recognise Macedonian ethnicity and language. The Serbian Orthodox Church (after the Bulgarian, the second oldest Slavic orthodox church) contributes to the fray by not recognising the Macedonian and Montenegrin orthodox churches; it also refuses to acknowledge the Montenegrin ethnicity and language. By the end of the last century, the Western Balkans had fallen victim to traditional, territorial wars; at present, the region faces the threat of a new Cold War. It also has huge potential for exporting religious extremists. In eastern Ukraine, pro-Russian separatists are waving a flag of ‘pan-Slavic unification’ to the Orthodox Church faithful; in the Middle East, the Islamic State and similar terror groups are calling on Muslims to fight for their ‘caliphate.’ The Balkans lie at the crossroads between Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. If the region remains in strategic limbo, the resulting geopolitical vacuum could be filled by players that may not be to the EU’s liking. For a more in-depth look at this subject with scenarios looking to future outcomes, go to our sister site: Geopolitical Information Service. Sign in for 3 Free Reports or Subscribe.

RB metadata

ID: 

1447083480803719000