Bulgaria’s veto to North Macedonia’s EU integration process has hijacked the EU’s enlargement process, has threatened the bloc’s credibility all the while discouraging the other countries that are candidates for joining the Union. It should become a standard hopefuls and member countries to be required to sign declarations committing them not to block the EU integration bid when bilateral issues are involved, according to Florian Bieber, director of the Centre for Southeast European Studies at Austria’s University of Graz.
In a statement for MIA, when asked about the position of Sofia, which has conditioned North Macedonia’s accession bid demanding the country that it recognized the Bulgarian roots of its identity and language – widely seen as unprincipled demands that violate the country’s right to self-determination – Bieber says the Bulgarian position is problematic from three perspectives.
Firstly, he notes, it sets demands for Macedonia, which should not be subject to political decisions and pressure between countries. No matter how to interpret the history, this should be the job of historians, otherwise history is discussed by amateurs. It also puts history in the service of a particular nation.
“Second, imposing a national history on another is bullying and also not in line with good-neighborly relations. Third, such issues should not stand in the way of EU accession as they do not concern the EU-readiness of North Macedonia. It is, thus, hijacking of the EU accession. The countries of the Western Balkans have signed twice declarations to commit themselves to not blocking each others EU path over bilateral issues. While Bulgaria has not signed it, this should be the standard,” the political analyst, an expert on Balkans affairs, tells MIA.
Of course, Bieber adds, Bulgaria has the power to use its veto on the matter. “I also don’t want to go into the historical dispute itself, as there are nationalist and one-sided interpretations both in North Macedonia and in Bulgaria,” he says.
As to whether we are witnessing the Greek scenario being repeated once again, and what it could mean for the EU accession path of the country, Bieber says Bulgaria would find it hard to stick to its position.
“It is a bit different as Greece had had objected since the independence [of the country]. While it has been clear that Bulgaria had different views than North Macedonia, it never made it a condition. It thus lacks even more credibility. Furthermore, Bulgaria is a weaker EU member state with less leverage. I would expect that it would have a hard time to stick to its position. [Bulgarian PM Boyko] Borissov has been overall pragmatic and also sought not to stand out or be in conflict with the majority of the EU like Hungary or Poland,” the Austrian political scientist says.
Bieber says the veto would affect the reform implementation in the country all the while having consequences on the integration processes of all the countries in the region.
“Of course, it is a discouragement for reforms and efforts to join the EU. It will be tempting to say why bother, if one country can block the process for whatever reason. What this argument forgets that joining the EU is never a purpose by itself, but rule of law, reformed economy and the other conditions are useful and important for the country to have better rules, be more democratic and have a better functioning economy. It is worthwhile engaging in reforms even if EU membership would not happen,” he notes.
However, according to Bieber, it is much harder to motivate and get skeptics on board if these blockages occur.
“More troubling is that there is no guarantee that other EU members will not engage in similar blockages for other reasons. This seriously threatens the credibility. In particular in regard to issues that are harder to resolve, such as relations between Serbia and Kosovo, it is hard to see why Serbia should agree to a compromise if only a very uncertain EU future is on offer,” the analyst stresses.
Whether Bulgaria’s veto serves the interests of anyone, Bieber calls it ‘a short-sighted nationalist position’ of the Sofia administration.
“I think it is not strategic, as it paying a price for such a position in the EU and also undermines its credibility and relations with North Macedonia. There are others who are skeptical towards enlargement, such as France and the Netherland. However, it does not seem that they are currently ‘hiding’ behind the Bulgarian opposition [to the opening of negotiations]. The problem is more that there are not enough countries that are enlargement enthusiasts who are willing to press on and put pressure on their fellow members to drop such blockages,” professor Bieber tells MIA.
