Fear, humiliation, hope - Ditmir Bushati, November 2025

Although the European Commission’s reports are far from being literature or carpentry, the same logic applies to them. Their content aims to find a fair balance between reflecting the reality in the countries seeking membership and encouraging them to continue with the reform process. At the same time, for the European Commission it is important to maintain credibility in relation to European taxpayers, but also to the citizens of the countries aspiring to join the EU, especially when it is known that for more than two decades the enlargement policy, even though widely accepted as one of the EU’s most successful policies, has not produced tangible results for the Western Balkan countries.

Due to the security environment facing Europe as a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the European Commission has been trying over the past two years to present enlargement as a key geopolitical tool for the EU, to convince primarily the EU member states that through it, it is possible to address some of the challenges Europe is facing. On the other hand, the member states have given the European Commission the opportunity to keep the hope of membership alive through symbolic acts reflected in the recognition of the membership perspective for Ukraine and Moldova, the faster pace of opening negotiation chapters with Albania, and the closure of several chapters with Montenegro.

In her State of the Union speech in September this year, the President of the European Commission spoke of “the future reunification of Europe” and described an expanded EU with the Western Balkans, Ukraine, and Moldova as “a security guarantee for all of us.”

Because of the destructive geopolitical environment, the EU is in the process of transforming from a community that initially focused on trade and the economy into a geostrategic project. From a soft influencer in building democratic institutions into an executor of hard power, placing emphasis on security, energy, sanctions, and even industrial policies and strategic autonomy.

It is true that this geopolitical environment has opened a window of opportunity for EU enlargement. However, the outlook for this policy remains unclear. If we refer to the European Commission’s assessments in the enlargement package, the membership of new countries within the mandate of this Commission appears to be an extremely difficult mission. Despite the optimism of senior European Commission officials about reviving a long-dormant process, two red lines will be insurmountable for the Commission regarding the progress of candidate countries towards EU membership: geopolitical alignment and sustainable reforms related to the rule of law and the economy.

Substance, not form, for a new path

In this year’s enlargement package one can notice an effort by the European Commission to distance itself from the bitter legacy of the “turning a blind eye” policy in the face of democratic backsliding in Serbia. Although overdue, this is an approach that should be welcomed. However, according to the Commission’s own assessment, the fact that Kosovo, even though under unfair restrictive measures by the EU and with its membership application waiting for years to be reviewed, still marked progress in many areas, calls into question the effectiveness of the EU’s policy pursued so far.

For a long time, I have argued that the EU should explore a new path in our region: the democratic encirclement of Serbia with success stories. Montenegro and Albania can and should open this new path, as they do not face insurmountable challenges. And above all, the nature of unresolved issues with neighbors in the EU is less complicated compared to other countries in the region. However, for this path to become irreversible toward EU membership, success stories must be genuine, reforms sustainable. The Commission must turn from a preacher into a demanding and encouraging actor for the implementation of democratic standards and European values in our region.

For example, the OSCE-ODIHR report on the parliamentary elections of 11 May 2025 in Albania maps the influence of crime, the use of state assets, the public administration, and the media in elections. While a similarly critical OSCE-ODIHR report for the 2023 parliamentary elections in Serbia hindered its progress toward the EU, in Albania’s case the European Commission must treat with priority and determination the political reform related to the functioning of all institutions to guarantee free and fair elections. This would prevent the lack of true reform from becoming an obstacle to meeting the standards related to the rule of law and the functioning of democratic institutions.

Likewise, the positive assessments regarding SPAK’s work in the fight against corruption and organized crime by the European Commission must be accompanied by concrete evaluations regarding their impact on the country’s good governance and the integrity of public life, as well as the standards required by the EU accession process. The punitive effect of specialized structures in the fight against impunity remains limited as long as preventive and corrective elements depend mainly on governance and the adaptation of practices that ensure integrity in public life and the proper administration of the state budget.

While the judiciary is responsible for identifying the criminal liability of high-level officials or criminal groups, governance and its bodies must be the dams that protect us from “floods” of corruption and crime.

If in the fight against corruption and organized crime we rely solely on SPAK’s work, I fear that both we and the European Commission will repeat the mistake made with the justice reform, which focused more on the number of prosecutors and judges who lost their jobs because of the vetting process than on other elements equally important for an efficient justice system.

Alongside listing high-level officials or criminal groups facing justice, we are still far from embracing good and transparent governance practices that ensure fair competition in public and economic life. Likewise, the fight against organized crime and its influence on public and economic life should be a priority for all state structures—and indeed a social priority.

Geopolitical alignment

As is known, beyond a corpus of norms that must be met, known as the Copenhagen criteria, enlargement also functions as a political tool. If we analyze the history of EU enlargement, we will conclude that decisions have often been driven by geopolitical and normative considerations rather than the strict fulfillment of EU criteria. For example, the accession of Greece, Spain, and Portugal in the 1980s, or the major enlargements of 2004 and 2007, were primarily motivated by geopolitical changes and aspirations to support democratic transition.

Although the reasons for today’s geopolitical circumstances differ from those above, we are again at a crossroads where the EU’s need to position itself as a global actor with weight clashes with the very essence of the enlargement process, which is based on the individual merit of each state, ensuring democratic transformation and sustainable economic development.

This year, the European Commission emphasized even more strongly that geopolitical alignment with the EU is of strategic importance because of the geopolitical environment. In fact, the Enlargement Commissioner warned that “Trojan horses” are not welcome in the EU—an allusion to Serbia’s position regarding Russia.

At first glance, geopolitical alignment with the EU appears to be an external process unrelated to domestic political developments. In reality, this is not the case. One of the things I have learned from my experience in politics and foreign affairs is that there has always been an artificial boundary between the two. Today that boundary no longer exists. Because the way countries are governed is also projected through the foreign policy they pursue. Foreign policy is an accurate reflection of the nation’s psyche and of what is happening in the political body at a given moment.

Serbia’s arguments attempting to find similar cases within the EU to justify its failure to impose sanctions on Russia do not hold. Likewise, Albania’s unusual position in publicly asking the EU “not to pressure Serbia to join sanctions against Russia” proved wrong. The EU has no reason to tolerate the abandonment of the principles that sustain it, especially in the conditions imposed by Europe’s security environment.

Dilemmas seeking answers

The uncertainty about the future of the enlargement process does not stem only from the stage of reforms and geopolitical alignment in the candidate countries, but above all from the EU member states themselves. Because of their dilemmas—though they believe that enlargement and the consolidation of the European project are necessary and unavoidable—they are still not ready to support a clear membership plan accompanied by mutual actions. This makes it easy to understand why the European Commission did not present last week the long-awaited pre-accession report. This report will determine the main directions and reforms the EU must undertake to prepare for enlargement.

It is clear that an expanded EU would require a redefinition of major budgetary lines, changes in agricultural and cohesion policies, in the decision-making process, and above all it would change its borders. While in the Western Balkans, rather than enlargement, for the EU this is a matter of consolidation—since the countries of our region are surrounded by EU member states—in the case of Ukraine and Moldova, because of their neighborhood with Russia, the ongoing war, and the fact that parts of their territories are under Russian occupation, the situation becomes more complex.

While challenges remain, the EU must offer its candidates a credible membership perspective, beyond the optimism of senior European officials. The EU must overcome the fear that characterizes part of its member states toward an EU with 30 or 33 members in terms of decision-making and functioning. It must correct through concrete actions the sense of humiliation noticed in some countries that, although they have progressed with reforms, have not been rewarded in this process. And certainly, the EU must inspire hope and popular optimism derived from building a better future and focusing on democratic transformation and sustainable economic development.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ditmir Bushati, former Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, former Member of the Albanian Parliament.

The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation or the organizations the authors work for.