The publication of the European Commission’s annual enlargement packages used to be a big deal. The Communication itself and,evenmore, individual country reportswere eagerly awaited as an indicator of governments’political and policydirection and their achievements. The pressure to havethe reportstranslated as swiftlyas possible was intense, as theywere the subject of a lively public debate – in national parliaments, in the media, in civil society organisations.
They were appreciated as a useful tool tokeepgovernments accountable for maintaining the reform dynamic that would ensure progress towards EU membership – a goal that was overwhelmingly supported in all of the Western Balkan countries.This reflected an understanding that both themembershipperspectivewasachievablein a not-too-distant future,and that theCommission was an impartial arbiterof developments in the countriesit reported on.
As this European perspective became more distant and elusive, the feeling of immediacy and importanceassociated with the publication ofthe packages was lost.Whilelengthierand more detailed, the reports became partof a bureaucratic exercise, notvery relevant for the lives of ordinary citizens.
Originally called “progress reports”, the documents are now more realistically named “country reports”. And in fact,nearly 20 yearsafter the membership promise of Thessaloniki, not one of the Western Balkan countrieshas come evenclose to joining the European Union. Even when the Commission recommends advancing a country to the next stageof the enlargement process, this is often blockedby one or more member states on grounds that have nothing to do with the developments the Commission reported on.
Finally, the bureaucratic language, in which developments are described, lends itselftoo easilyto different interpretation by governments and thosetryingto hold them responsible for delivering – or not – reformsassociated with the European agenda.Responding to criticism, the Commission madeitsassessment of level of preparedness, as well as recommendations for specific criteria, clearer. But anunderstanding of how a country compares with the others in the region or with its own performance over timeremains elusive. A very thin line separates“further work and political commitment areneededto continue and deepen reforms and address shortcomings” from “backsliding”.
Themeaning of the former can easily be lost on ordinary people; the latter is clear to all.Even when the Commission is clear in its description of the situation - as was the case with referencing state capture in its 2018 Communication - it is hesitant to repeat the qualification in any of its country reports, leaving it open for whom it might actually be relevant.
The result is a missed opportunity for a real debateaboutwhat was done, what should be done and, more generally,what this was all about.It would be even more important to have the reports followed up by action– like granting candidate status to Bosnia and Herzegovina and visa liberalisation to Kosovo.
Earlier this year,Ukraine and Moldova became candidates for EU membership. In extremely difficult circumstances, this was a reminder of why the European project matters.If there are any lessons for the Commission from the experience with the Western Balkans, these aretospeak clearly and make sure that words are not devalued by lack ofaction.