The Western Balkans and the IPA III discussed by the European Parliament
During the discussion on the regulation for the establishment of the Instrument for the Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) provided to Western Balkan countries applying for a membership in the European Union, the political parties took into consideration the objectives of the IPA and commented on the issues of cross-border cooperation, the selection of a mediator for the Western Balkan region, allocation of funds and reforms related to their judicial system, environment and migration.
A representative of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE Party) began the discussion by emphasizing on how important it is for the EU is to support territorial and cross-border cooperation between the Western Balkan countries. The representative proposed that Western Balkan countries need to solve the diplomatic deadlock associated with border disputes, adding that coming to a common agreement would facilitate and accelerate their accession process to the EU. She explained that the Union should coordinate the cross-border cooperation by organizing annual meetings to settle the border disputes.
Asen Lazarov, a representative of the European of Nations and Freedom (ENF) Party, questioned the solution of the border disputes. Lazarov emphasized the difficulty in determining who is right or wrong in disputes such as the one between Serbia and Kosovo. He went on to clarify that people in these countries are not likely to discuss the dispute and they wouldn’t accept third parties to manage the conflict.
Following the border dispute issue, the Parliament members brought up the subject of the mediator whose role is to guide and coordinate cooperation between the Western Balkan countries. The European Parties shared opposing views on the matter.
The European Conservatives and Reformists claimed that a third-country outside Europe that doesn’t show a direct interest for the region should accept the role of a mediator. The SD Party contradicted its counterparts as their representative Stoyan Alov insisted that either Visegrad countries or Bulgaria, Romania or Croatia should be selected as a mediator. He argued that the mediator must be a geographically positioned country. He favored Croatia since the country has gone through similar political events and thus it can render its expertise. Another country the delegate favored was Bulgaria as it has already acted as a mediator during the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
Although Croatia and Bulgaria were presented as suitable candidates for the position of a mediator, the ALDE Party questioned their role. The ALDE representatives argued that there were still unresolved disputes between Croatia and Serbia and thus it would not be relevant to place Croatia as mediator. They didn’t approve of Bulgaria either because the country focused more on its independent foreign policy. Although the parties intensively argued on the selection of a country for the role of a mediator, they all agreed to choose ambassadors instead such as academics and expert people.
Afterwards, the MEPs continued on discussing the issue of allocation of funds and reforms in the Western Balkan countries. Martin Kovachki, delegate from the European’s People Party, proposed an increase in the budget for the allocation of accession funds to which many of the Parliament members opposed. However, most of the delegates agreed on combating the migration crisis, environmental challenges, and corruption. They also added that the Western Balkan countries should adopt criteria to maintain a low level of corruption in the judicial system.
The lobbyists ended the discussion as they introduced their project whose main objectives are integration of minorities in the workforce, attraction of foreign investments and developing start-ups. Their project aims to create a welcoming environment for business in the Western Balkan countries and improve the current conditions of young people in these countries.
Photo credits: Mladen Pecakovski
