Dr. G?zim Visoka:

I thank Deputy Howlin very much for his questions. With regard to his first question, in a way I was intrigued by Mr. Laják’s assessment, which I completely share when it comes to regional affairs, although there are nuances on which we have different opinions. The dilemma between a swift process and one which is merit-based has been an ongoing and long-term one. I do not believe the western Balkan countries want immediate membership. They want clarity and serious commitment. In the past 20 years, there have been many back-and-forth promises, a stepping back and a failure to hold to those promises, so one must ask how does one restore credibility. That is the main point. All of these countries have set up the infrastructure to implement the required reforms. I do not believe they have ill intentions although some of them try to delay and benefit from the status quobut, mostly, society, civil society and the political spectrum in each country are committed to the European project. We just need clarity and a timeline, so to speak. North Macedonia, for example, applied for membership in 2003 and it was only 20 years later that accession talks opened. That is significant loss of social and political time. It is in fact a generation in time.

Something that is often missed is that Europeanisation is a social intervention project. It is a deep cultural and political transformation, which takes time. Despite reforms that may be made at institutional level, at a societal level, it is a long-term process. It is not easy to meet the benchmarks set by the EU. The EU has set very high benchmarks for the region but it has not followed the political realisation of those promises. In turn, countries in the region have lost faith, benefited from the status quoand reversed progress.

My view is that the recent geopolitical moves to overcome this fatigue or blockages are positive. I share the concern of the Chairman with regard to the two-tier or phased integration. In the interim, they are useful steps to break down the process. I share the Chairman's view that there should be a clear legally binding commitment both as regards time and targets. The countries in question can then say they are happy to go with this phased, gradual integration. Mr. Laják mentioned the idea that if some countries align with the EU on foreign policy, they should be invited to meetings of the Foreign Affairs Committee meetings or have a back seat in this process. These would be important signals to countries in the region that the EU is serious about their integration.

Where I would be cautious is the fear that in the long term the EU will back off. What we are seeing are political commitments of actual leaders. Elections happen, people move and promises fade away.

Serbia is a country which tries to benefit from both eastern and western systems and has had this historical and geopolitical position. That is also its position with regard to EU integration. It has always remained open to the European integration process but it has never cut ties with anti-European forces. That is coming to a point where we now see dilemmas. Serbia is the only country in the region which is not aligning with the EU when it comes to sanctions. In fact, it has deepened its political, intelligence and security ties with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine. Over 100,000 Russians have moved to Serbia and it is becoming the hub of the Russian intelligence community.