Event Report
The EU’s Enlargement Dilemma in the Western Balkans

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the EU-Western Balkans Summit in December 2024.

© European Union, 2025, CC BY 4.0

To enlarge, or to not enlarge?

At the beginning of the millennium, in 2003, Brussels granted the Western Balkans a membership perspective. First accession talks, with North Macedonia, started two years later. Since then, however, time passed – and with it a series of political and economic crises that have pushed the Western Balkans to the back of Brussel’s agenda. 

After Croatia became the latest country to join the Union in 2013, Ursula von der Leyen’s predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker, responded to the enlargement question with a firm ‘not on my watch’. He argued the EU needed “a break from enlargement so that we consolidate what has been achieved.” Nevertheless, he maintained that negotiations with the Western Balkans should continue. 

When von der Leyen assumed leadership of the European Commission, enthusiasm for enlargement remained limited. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, however, triggered a geopolitical awakening that reinvigorated the EU’s enlargement agenda. 

In 2023, the EU launched the “Growth Plan for the Western Balkans”, and at the most recent Western Balkans Summit last year Brussels reaffirmed its commitment to the region. A flurry of high-level visits by EU leaders – such as European Council President António Costa and the EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas – underscore this renewed engagement. 

Reflecting this shift, the European Commission and Germany’s new government now describe the enlargement process as “a geopolitical necessity”. The EU is also advancing cooperation in the security and defence sphere, having concluded defence partnerships that enable Albania and North Macedonia to take part in future military exercises and defence industrial initiatives.

A "grey zone" in Southeast Europe? The Western Balkans encompass the remaining six countries that have not yet acceeded the European Union.

© European Union 2025; multimedia.europarl.europa.eu

Front-runners: Ahead of Ukraine, but nowhere close to fulfilling all criteria

In January, a study by the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (SCEEUS) concluded grimly: “No [EU] candidate state is anywhere near completing the course.” 

Nevertheless, Albania recorded measurable progress and is perceived, along Montenegro and Northern Macedonia, to be one of the front runners in the EU’s enlargement process – much ahead even of Ukraine and Moldova. 

But criticism is not only due for the candidates. The very same SCEEUS study points to the EU’s enlargement methodology, which just got reformed five years ago. “The lack of transparency on the part of the Commission over the ratings required for accession is more than a technical weakness – it amounts to a disincentive for the efforts of the candidates to meet the (unspecified) required standards,” the authors write. 

Panel discussion with High Representative Christian Schmidt: "The hour of the Europeans"?

The Hanns Seidel Foundation invited several policymakers and regional experts to untangle this dilemma at a panel discussion in June in Brussels.  

During the debate, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina – an institution under the UN Security Council that oversees the implementation of the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement –, Christian Schmidt, advocated for a whole-of-the-region approach to the Western Balkans that aims to bring all six states into the EU at once. From a geostrategic point of view, Schmidt said, an integration of the West Balkans without Serbia would be incomplete. Furthermore, political developments in the region could not be regarded in isolation from each other. 

Discussing the EU's "enlargement dilemma" in Brussels, 24 June 2025 (from left to right): Jovana Marović, Christian Schmidt, Frauke Seebass, Michael Gahler, MEP, and Marko Makovec.

Henrik Bauscher; HSS Europe

Since the fall of the iron curtain, the region has been a matter of strategic interest for the EU, argues Schmidt. He quotes Jacques Poos, the former Foreign Minister of Luxemburg who quipped in 1991, “This is the hour of Europe, not of the Americans.” 

But, as Schmidt points out, this daring declaration was premature: Europe was military incapacitated; the EU12 diverged in interests and policy. The current dilemma, in Schmidt’s opinion, does not only hinge on the “enlargement fatigue” felt on the EU’s side, but also on fading commitment in some candidate states. This “Europe fatigue” in the Balkans, according to Schmidt, was a rather new phenomenon, overshadowing previous ambitions to become EU members “whatever it takes”. He underlined that EU accession is not merely an offer but about values that need to be adopted. The EU should therefore recognize where political concession come as lip service.

“An EU fatigue is no valid prescription for the Western Balkans; the Western Balkans belong to Europe,” Schmidt emphasised.  

At the same time, the High Representative urged caution that „secession is an actual threat in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” “Milorad Dodik, the President of the Republika Srpska, has gone down a misguided path. He has chosen the institutions created by the Dayton Agreement, including myself, as his main adversaries.” 

30 years after Dayton Peace Agreement, the conditions for a self-sustaining development in Bosnia and Herzegovina are still not in place. On the contrary, nationalist and separatist tendencies have increased over the years. 

“I hope that the Americans keep an eye on the situation. After all, this is a NATO issue as well,” the High Representative warns.  

The EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, with North Macedonia's Prime Minister, Hristijan Mickosk, in Skoppje, May 2025. North Macedonia became the first Western Balkan country to sign a Security and Defence Partnership with the EU in November 2024.

X/@kajakallas

Enlargement process has become more politicised and difficult

But enlargement policy is not confined to the Union and the candidate countries only.

External actors want to see the EU fail in its neighbourhood policy, maintained Marko Makovec, Head of Cabinet of the EU’s Commissioner for Enlargement. According to the EU official, the enlargement process has therefore grown more politicised and difficult. Technical questions aside, the EU today needed to tackle bilateral issues and challenges in the enlargement negotiations, many deriving from bloody conflicts of 1990s. 

Regardless of geopolitical imperatives, however, Makovec reaffirmed that the EU would not compromise on the merit-based approach: “Merit-based remains the core of the accession. It is the red line we’re following.” 

Nevertheless, the Commission tries to enlarge the concept, marrying geo-strategy and values. “We’re looking into the unification of Europe. That goes beyond classical accession negotiations.” Unification would mean that all countries willing to join the community of European values could find a way through gradual integration. “The Growth Plan for the Western Balkans is only one of instruments we’re using. We’re already including the countries into main European policies.” For example, some countries have been featured in the SAFE regulation on the rearmament of Europe as well as in the EU’s Internal Security Strategy. 

Pre-enlargement review expected in fall of 2025 – “It will be in the hands of the EU member states”

Another round of EU enlargement is not only about reforms in respective candidate countries. The EU itself needs to become fit for enlargement itself. 

“Internally the Commission is doing a lot to improve our absorption capacities for the next enlargement. In fall – perhaps in September – we will come out with the pre-enlargement policy review, looking into our internal policies for internal market, defence, climate, security,” said Makovec.

“Following the guidelines for this Commission’s mandate, we will try to bring some countries to the end of accession negotiations very soon. From then on, it will be in the hands of the EU member states.”

In the Commission’s point of view, Albania and Montenegro have shown real commitment to European values and made tremendous progress over the last five to seven years. In particular, Makovec praised the personal efforts of the Albanian chief negotiator. “The front-runner is, of course, Montenegro – and I believe that Montenegro will conclude their accession negotiation on time.” The Serbian government, on the other hand, would again need “to show real commitment to the accession negotiations.” 

At the Adriatic Sea: Budva, Montenegro.

Mikhail Nilov; Pexels

Former Prime Minister of Montenegro: “We still don’t have consistency between political rhetoric and reality”

For Jovana  Marović, former Deputy Prime Minister of Montenegro, EU enlargement is less a question about accession deadlines but about how the process is used for the Western Balkans to create stability and progress in democratisation. 

“I agree we have a new momentum with the European Commission. The Western Balkan countries are now better integrated in EU programmes such as the Growth Plan.” But she warned that the rule of law was not improving. “We still don’t have consistency between political rhetoric and reality.” 

“The Commission’s rhetoric is also more optimistic compared to its own assessments in the country reports,” criticised the former Montenegrin Minister. “The country report on Serbia last October was very negative. But just a few weeks later, President von der Leyen visited the country and said ‘Dear Aleksandar, you’re so dedicated to the rule of law – this is really impressive.’” 

On 24 June 2025, the Hanns Seidel Foundation invited regional experts and policymakers to discuss the prospects and challenges of EU enlargement in the Western Balkans.

Henrik Bauscher; HSS Europe

EU "closes space for civil society"

“It was not for the first time that the Commission and EU member states – such as Germany – traded European values for pragmatic interests,” says Marović, referring to the controversial Lithium mining deal signed between Brussels and Belgrade last year. 

Marović further flagged that the EU applied different standards across the countries –  especially for Kosovo – which raises questions about the EU’s reliability and trustworthiness. She thus called for finally opening negotiations with Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to create incentives for reforms. 

Another unintended consequence of the EU’s negotiations was the “marginalisation” of civil society. “In the case of Montenegro, a benchmark for cooperation with civil society was applied at the beginning – but we do not have this condition anymore. The paradox is: the closer the country comes to EU membership, the less important the role of civil society becomes.” 

“By praising reforms where there are no reforms, the EU closes the space for political parties and civil society watchdogs,” warns Marović. “We need to link the Growth Plan to reforms on the rule of law and apply sanctions if candidates violate the rules of procedures.”

Money talks: Are the member states the main obstacle to EU enlargement?

Michael Gahler, coordinator for foreign affairs at the European People’s Party (EPP), echoed the calls for keeping EU accession merit-based – also in view of maintaining acceptance for the enlargement process at home.  “We have to ensure that the funds we provide – and they are enormous – are used for the designed purpose.” The general public in EU member states should thereby be reassured that enlargement was “a good process and of mutual benefit.” 

 “In Albania, money laundering and drug trafficking is part of the reality.” Such obstacles should be overcome in cooperation with local governments and civil society in the countries. 

Edi Rama (left), Prime Minister of Albania, would like to lead his country into the EU by 2030. António Costa, President of the European Council, is a strong supporter of EU enlargement.

© European Union, 2025, CC BY 4.0

The parliamentarian sees some warning examples even inside some EU member states, where oligarchic structures misappropriate EU funds.  

A major obstacle to EU enlargement nonetheless, according to Gahler, were the EU member states themselves. “It is all about financing”, he argues. “Let’s be honest: all member states want to retain the current level of EU funding they receive. But if we have more tasks to fulfil, more challenges to address, and more members to feed, we need another financing system.” 

Another issue was that some EU member states use their vote in the negotiation process for bilateral reasons. Although the EU treaties require unanimous decisions only for launching and concluding membership negotiations, this praxis is also applied when opening the negotiations on concrete policy areas (‘chapters’). Gahler therefore demands a change to qualified majority voting in the council to avoid political blackmailing from inside the EU. 

Conclusion: “Turn the dilemma into action”

As the discussion demonstrated, the EU enlargement process has grown overly politicised from inside and outside the EU – a situation where governments, civil society, and regional elites need to be brought into the fold. To find a way out, said High Representative Schmidt, “We need to achieve the feat of turning the dilemma into action.” 

Jovana Marović, who published an expert review detailing her critique of both the EU and regional governments, suggested that a clarification by the EU was needed by the end of this year. “Montenegro and Albania may be front-runners. But I think there is a need to have a declaration, for example, published in December, stating that the European Commission will prepare an accession treaty with Montenegro to be signed by 2029.” But in order to be signed, this should be contingent on Montenegro implementing reforms. A newly-established ad-hoc group, similar to the one with Northern Macedonia, should monitor if there is real progress on the ground.

The next steps will be taken by the European Commission this fall: both the internal pre-enlargement policy review and the annual enlargement reports (expected in October) by Commissioner Marta Kos may send signals for the way out of this dilemma. The question, then, will be what EU member states and candidate countries make out of it.