Subscribe
The European Union’s enlargement process in the Western Balkans has been one of the most complex issues on the EU agenda for years. It intertwines geopolitical issues, internal political conditions within the candidate countries, and the Union’s own decision-making dynamics. In this context, the recent setback in Serbia’s accession process highlights the structural difficulties of the current enlargement model, as well as tensions between European institutions and member states. The stalemate over the so-called Cluster 3 negotiating chapters has taken on a symbolic significance that goes beyond the technical realm, reflecting strategic divergences over Belgrade’s role in the European political space.
THE STOPPAGE OF CLUSTER 3 AND BELGRADE’S REACTION
Serbia has seen blocked its accession to the third group of negotiating chapters covering economic and social issues, despite the European Commission’s favorable opinion last November. In response to the European Council decision, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić made a high-impact political gesture by deserting the summit between the European Union and the Western Balkan countries held in Brussels on December 17. For the first time in fourteen years, no Serbian representative attended the meeting, a decision motivated by a formal protest against the slowdown in the accession process.
A NEGOTIATION PROCESS MARKED BY STRUCTURAL SLOWDOWNS
Serbia’s European journey began in 2009 with its formal application for membership, but has experienced phases of uneven progress. A significant slowdown occurred following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, an event that redefined the Union’s strategic priorities and increased expectations of political alignment among the candidate countries. Within this framework, Serbia’s position has remained ambiguous, particularly due to its failure to comply with European sanctions against the Russian Federation, a factor that has profoundly affected the country’s perception of reliability among several member states.
DIVISIONS AMONG MEMBER STATES AND THE RUSSIAN QUESTION
Relations between Belgrade and Moscow are one of the main sources of friction in the European debate. Eight member states, including Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Baltic states, and Croatia, have expressed opposition to the opening of new negotiating chapters with Serbia. Conversely, countries such as Italy, France, and Austria have expressed support for continuing the accession process. Beyond Serbia’s foreign policy, opposing governments raise persistent doubts about the country’s progress in the rule of law. Although Cluster 3 primarily concerns economic and social aspects, the issue of media freedom remains a sticking point, still considered unresolved by the more skeptical partners.
THE DEBATE ON THE ENLARGEMENT MODEL
Tensions escalated rapidly in the hours leading up to the Brussels summit. Just a few days earlier, during an informal dinner, Vučić had revived the idea of a simultaneous enlargement of the Union to the Western Balkan countries. This proposal harks back to the 2004 model, when a large group of former communist countries joined the Union in a single round. The idea was developed with the aim of preventing the region’s countries, just emerging from the conflicts of the 1990s, from blocking each other’s accession through cross-vetoes. According to Jović, the European experience has confirmed these fears. The dispute between Slovenia and Croatia over the Gulf of Piran had long delayed Zagreb’s accession, while North Macedonia was blocked first by Greece over the name issue and then by Bulgaria due to historical and linguistic disputes. Despite this, the Union has chosen the principle of individual accession in the Balkans, motivated by the different political and judicial legacies of the Yugoslav conflicts. In particular, Serbia has had to grapple with the rulings of the Hague Tribunal and the unresolved issue of Kosovo’s independence, which continues to weigh on its political development.
FUTURE PROSPECTS AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES OF THE UNION
Since March 2022, European leaders have sought to relaunch enlargement as a tool for defining the frontiers of continental security. Ukraine’s possible accession is also considered a diplomatic lever in a future peace scenario, but requires a credible resumption of the process in the Western Balkans. However, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia remain on the sidelines, hampered both by the Union’s internal crises and by their own unresolved conflicts. According to Jović, overcoming these dynamics would require a profound reform of the European decision-making system, moving from unanimity to qualified majority voting, since the current mechanism allows a single member state to block the entire accession process of a candidate country.