After Brexit what will be with the Balkans?

(Photo: Flickr|Bryan Pocius, licensed by CC BY 2.0)

Shortly after the Brexit vote, Balkan countries were reassured from top EU leaders that enlargement will continue. The looming UK exit from the EU would not stop aspirant countries from joining the fractured European bloc one day, once they are ready. 

This strong message came in unison from French President Francois Hollande, Germany‘s Chancellor Angela Merkel and the EU’s de facto Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini at the Balkan summit in Paris on 4 July. 

It was nice and timely, but hard to believe.

Two Views

If we look at the facts and trends, there are two very different outlooks on the future enlargement to the Western Balkans – positive and negative. 

On the one hand, this is the only region outside of the EU with membership perspective. Already now, the Western Balkans are completely geographically encircled by the Union. 

Collectively known as the WB6, Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and even Kosovo (still not recognized by several EU member states including Slovakia) – are at different stages in the integration process, which was designed to improve their state institutions, economies and legislation. Two of them, Montenegro and Serbia, have already advanced their ongoing accession talks with the EU, while Albania hopes to open them next year. 

Support in the EU

The Slovak EU Presidency, which is very committed to this process, has managed to achieve progress at the technical level even in the weeks and months after the Brexit referendum. Even amidst today’s turmoil in Europe, there are huge majorities in support of joining the EU in all six countries. At the same time, the economic growth has picked up, and is expected to reach over 3 percent in 2017 on the back of rising domestic consumption, foreign investment and export, mostly to the huge EU market. 

Plus there is the so-called Berlin Process in parallel, consisting of yearly summits between WB6 and a group of key EU countries. It is also moving ahead, with international financial institutions on board, by committing funding for cross-border transport and energy infrastructure. 

On the other hand, there is very negative external and internal context. Brexit negotiations, security and migration crises, growing populism and democracy backsliding add to a wide-spread European malaise. As EU institutions and national capitals will be self-absorbed with internal issues, there will be less political attention in Brussels and Berlin and leverage to promote reforms in the neighborhood, even in the inner courtyard. Without the risk of a renewed armed conflict or migration flows, the Western Balkans are likely to remain a low priority. 

Rather Slowly

The enlargement train is going to be moving but at a very slow pace, and in the shadow of Turkey, by far the largest and strategically most important EU accession country. Even the Berlin Process, in spite of all the right messages at its last summit in July, has produced few results so far. 

At the same time, most EU governments and populations do not see why they should rush with accepting the poor Balkan countries as new members. The enlargement process is alive but its timeframe is being extended: it is estimated that it will take Serbia at least 10-15 years to finish accession talks, as opposed to 8 years in the case of Croatia. The current GDP per capita of the WB6 is only about 30 – 40 percent of the EU average. This negative context plays into the hands of Balkan strongmen who pander to various geopolitical players or investors, increase their own power and patronage networks, and restrict space for democracy and media freedoms in their respective countries. 

Add to this picture a lack of competitiveness on the global markets, widespread corruption, and as Dušan Reljic reminds us, ‘it becomes utterly clear why the majority of the people in the Western Balkans and especially the young are losing hope that perspectives might brighten in their life-time.’ So faced with such a gloomy picture, what is the right strategy? 

BE Positive

In simple terms, it is to keep the positive agenda for the region alive and on track. The alternative would be far worse – deeper stagnation, instability and bilateral tensions boiling up.  Strategic complacency and neglect from Washington and the key EU capitals would also open up more space for other geopolitical rivals to increase their influence (Russia, China). 

It means a three-track approach: 

1) Working with the Balkan governments to advance reforms and integration, which is still the best policy tool for economic modernization, small advances in the rule of law and human rights. A small contribution to this goal was the high-level ministerial panel of the GLOBSEC TATRA Summit conference on 29 October 2016, featuring Foreign Ministers or State Secretaries of the WB6 countries. Prepared under the auspices of the Slovak EU Presidency, it presented a very competent, determined message in terms of what is being done in the region in terms of incremental change on the EU track. 

2) Political and financial support for domestic engines for change –  civil society and social movements, small and medium-size entrepreneurs, independent media and other democratic institutions that are under increased pressure from Balkan governments. 

3) Keep the Balkans as part of the Transatlantic agenda: Europe needs  American engagement to advanced both first and second tracks credibly and effectively. NATO's expansion to Montenegro is the latest sign that the U.S. involvement in the region has been more substantial than meets the eye. Let us hope that this active policy from the US State and Defense Departments will survive the upcoming American Presidential elections. 

Because if America decide to disengage from Europe and leave its allies and partners to take care of their own security, be sure that one of the first region that will pay the (a very high) costs will be the Balkans.  

Milan Nič  

Head of Europe Programme

GLOBSEC Policy Institute

A leap away from the EU, a leap towards Turulism?

(Photo: Flickr|EPP, licensed by CC BY 2.0)

To be proud of your nation and cultural heritage is common, it is even desired and understandable. Some, however, fall into the passions of ultranationalism. In the case of Hungarians, this phenomenon might be called turulism. 

The referendum on the EU quota on the resettlement of refugees in Hungary—is passionately discussed nowadays. The stakes are high and we all wish for clear answers of what is happening in Hungary. Is Orbán the savior or the annihilator?

Let us first repeat the crucial question that was asked on the 2^nd of October: Do you want the European Union to be able to mandate the obligatory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary even without the approval of the National Assembly? (Translation from Wikipedia.)

The attendance at the referendum was 43,80%, which is less than needed for it to be legally binding. According to the official results, 39,8% of the votes were valid, while 6,33% were invalid (more than 218 thousand). Fully 98,28% voted against the quotas (3,282 million voters out of the 9,937 million population) in contrast to the 1,72% who voted in favor a of them.

On 5^th October Bence Tuzson, Communication State Secretary at the Prime Minister's Cabinet Office announced that the government will incorporate the results of the referendum into the Constitution as over three million people supported the position of the government. However, 57,2% ignored the referendum thus it is hard to say that the government is acting in favor of the whole or at least the majority of the population. Plus, 6.33% of the votes were invalid, which could be understood as a form of protest while keeping the civil obligations. On 10^th October PM Orbán submitted the Constitutional amendment—saying that no foreign citizen can be relocated to Hungary through obligatory resettlement. All immigrants and asylum seekers must be evaluated individually except for citizens of the European Economic Area, which are excluded from this rule.  

The government believes that the suggested five Constitutional amendments would create a “new unity” of Hungarians . The main goal is to anchor the constitutional identity of Hungary which should be protected on all state levels. Indeed, the “new unity” will include statements regarding territory and population. The government wishes to base their claim that the nation state should be the basis for European decisions, and not vice versa, on constitutional grounds.. This is not building on the principle of synergy between EU and nation state interests but rather intends to build a hierarchy. Orbán´s government says it is taking the Hungarian spiritual essence under its protective wings to shield it against those who threaten Europe—and against Brussels´ dictate.  Whether it will be approved is a hard question.  For passing thought the Parliament the amendment has to be approved by a 2/3 majority. The far right Jobbik might secure the needed majority for FIDESZ, the support is already announced. Broader discussion within the Parliament about the concrete text is scheduled for 17^th October. We will see on 8^th November whether FIDESZ’s attempt for the seventh constitutional change will be another success.

The referendum itself has less of a legal affects than a political one. The international media is strongly criticizing Orbán´s referendum. As John Dalhuisen, the Director of Amnesty International said, “Prime Minister Orbán has replaces the rule of law with the rule of fear”.  And yes, fear was systematically fed by the campaign itself. Statements such as “we love our country” and “we do not allow our daughters and wives to be raped by immigrants” were only some of the many slogans used during the campaign. Even the “Roma card” was used in an unexpected way: the campaign threatened that migrants will steal the chance for a decent life for the Roma living in Hungary – as stated by Roma representatives close to the government.

Mass hysteria was fed by oversimplifications, the degradation of more complex views into black-and-white viewpoints, omnipresent xenophobia all served the rhetorical needs of officials. But, in fact, the general population has no real interaction with refugees or migrants (if we do not include their transition through the country). One of the opposition voices, the Kétfarkú Kutya Párt satirically pointed out in a question on a billboard set up in response to the official referendum campaign: “did you know? A common Hungarian sees more UFOs than migrants during their lifetime”.

Who really profited from the historically most expensive referendum (estimated to cost approx. 42,816 million Euros)? It was reported that two days after the referendum new billboards were placed in Budapest —exactly the same as prior to the referendum, repeating the appeal to vote for NO. What is the legitimacy behind placing outdated billboards on the street? The anti-migrant campaign continues after the referendum and does not lose its intensity.

On the 5^th of October after the bomb attack in Budapest the Government decided to launch a several-day-long counter-terrorism exercise in the Puskás Ferenc metro station by simulating a real-life terrorist attack. The simulation included men, women and children acting as terrorists and victims, with shouts of Allahu Akbar. V4 officials and other prominent guests were invited to observe this exercise.

In addition to fearmongering, the government always sees on calling on the sorrows of Hungarian history as a winning strategy . One of the examples used by Hungarian officials goes like this: Hungary has always faced difficulties alone, especially those imposed by foreign powers (such as the 1956 uprising). Doing what is right and needed is often judged in the present but only the future will show that righteousness is on the Hungarian side. Indeed, the fire of the heart fed by these sentiments can often blur the facts that are on the table.

However, let´s look now at the European dimension of the whole quota-related problem. The passionately discussed quotas were introduced for the sake of solidarity within the EU, aiming to reduce the sudden burden of countries being closer to the conflict zones or being at the Schengen border as EU countries would share the evaluation process of asylum seekers. It does not mean that Brussels is imposing forceful relocation. Asylum applications would be assessed according to national law by national officials.

In a recent letter from Donald Tusk in December 2015, Orbán agreed with the European Council about all the suggested quick measurements regarding asylum seekers. In addition, the EU itself agreed that the project of obligatory quotas came to a dead end at the Bratislava Summit in September. Solidarity among EU member countries will now be on different terms. So, why was the referendum necessary? Who benefited from it and how?

The media was saturated with the campaign. As a result, the majority of other crucial issues, such as corruption, cronyism, insufficient healthcare and the schooling system were marginalized.

Orbán is building up his arsenal of voters based on mild (or at least milder than Jobbik) turulist rhetoric. Simply because it works. Turulism has always been present in the Hungarian society, even before joining the EU club. In fact, neither the referendum nor the Constitutional amendment will bring any significant change. Nevertheless, even though it might be perceived that way, it is not an attempt to disintegrate the EU and there won´t be a HUXIT. Hungarians are proud members of the EU. For other populist leaders across Europe who are following the model of illiberal democracy this might be different, meaning they might appeal for exiting the EU. Indeed, this cannot be applied for Hungary—so far.

Alexandra Tóthová