(Ir)relevance of Croatian Experience for Further EU Enlargement.

• Author: Sabic, Senada Selo
• Position: ARTICLE - European Union - Report

Introduction

Since the European Union (EU) decided to open its door to former communist countries, it had three rounds of enlargement. In the so-called 'big bang enlargement' in 2004, the EU admitted ten new members--three Baltic countries, four Visegrad countries, Malta, Cyprus, and Slovenia. In 2007, Bulgaria and Romania joined, and Croatia in 2013. Europeanization studies defined enlargement as a new phenomenon that belongs to the field of European integration but possesses distinctively separate characteristics in terms of policy issues, relations between states and its impact on, primarily, acceding states. Europeanization theorists explained how EU rules, in a top-down approach, are being transposed into a candidate state making significant changes in a domestic environment. (1) Later work on Europeanization deepened the analysis by including the study of local actors. It was not enough to study how enlargement is affecting candidate countries, but also how these countries are affecting enlargement. Local actors are not necessarily passive recipients or responsive enthusiastic partners. More often than not, they resist change, fake reforms, or actively subvert the process. (2)

Although the answer is more complex, let us focus on two drivers of enlargement--values and interests. Moravcik and Vachudova (3) insist that pragmatic interests drive enlargement and dismiss mysticism or idealistic motivations. As much as enlargement may stir emotions, it is conducted in the 'long-term economic and geopolitical interest' (4) of both sides. At the same time, however, notions of historic reconciliation in Europe and that of liberal democratic victory drove enlargement. "Successive enlargements are making a reality of the vision of a united and peaceful continent," states a document of the Council of the EU. (5) Nonetheless, debates on interests and/or values are never straightforward. Enlargement has always depended on political weighing, primarily by existing member states deciding on admission of new members. Since not all EU member states necessarily share the same interests when deciding on enlargement, if there is significant will to proceed with admitting a new member, a bargaining process to remove objections takes place. (6) This bargaining process is assisted by normative peer pressure, or what Frank Schimmelfennig describes as "'rhetorical action'--the strategic use of norm-based arguments.'" (7) He explained that the "European integration has been legitimated by the ideology of a pan-European community of liberal-democratic states." (8) In other words, the EU is a project of peace and commonly shared values. If one advocates liberal values as a basis for integration and if there are applicants who claim that they espouse these values, then it is hard to deny membership to such candidates using the value argument.

The normative basis, however, is just a start. The EU requests any candidate to implement a series of reforms that should prepare it for the EU membership. To be certain that a candidate has implemented necessary political and economic conditions, the EU has designed elaborate mechanisms for monitoring and assessing reform results.

This paper starts by describing the Croatian accession experience. The next section looks at a rise of conservative political ideology in Croatia since it joined the EU. The following section looks at the country's weak political will to critically face its past. The membership experience is further assessed by looking at how Croatia implements its foreign policy, in particular because Croatia singles enlargement as one of its key foreign policy goals. The conclusion sums up the preceding debate and evaluates Croatia's role in any further enlargement taking into account the contemporary moment in the EU, the state of readiness for membership in the Western Balkan (WB) countries and Croatia's capacity (or lack of it) for a constructive contribution to enlargement.

Croatian Accession Experience

At the 2003 Thessaloniki Summit, the EU offered Stabilization and Association Agreements (SAAs) to the WB countries as a framework within which they would reform and fulfill conditions that qualify them for the EU membership. (9) By granting the SAAs, EU officials expressed their "unequivocal support to the European perspective of the Western Balkan countries." (10) Croatia is the first among the group of seven that has so far joined the EU, on July 1, 2013. (11) The remaining six (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia) are either negotiating, (12) waiting to start negotiations, (13) or are still potential candidates. (14) The SAAs, in addition to adopting the EU acquis, also included provisions for regional cooperation and economic development. (15) Unlike previous post-Cold war enlargements, WB countries would negotiate separately with the EU and their progress would be individually assessed. However, aware of the regional dynamic stemming from the violent dissolution of the former Yugoslavia and to balance the individual approach, the EU insisted that these countries had also to demonstrate a high level of regional cooperation. (16)

The Croatian case is relevant because of its similarity to WB countries. It is a post-communist state, with the experience of a recent war, geographically situated in the same region and was part of the same perspective for EU membership. It has cultural similarity, shares historical legacy, and has started from a similar economic and political base as its neighbors. However, among the WB states, Croatia was so far the only one capable to start and finish negotiations and become a full-fledged EU member.

When Croatia started negotiations, the EU had already learned from previous enlargements and identified problems that might arise, in particular those related to the rule of law. Therefore, the European Commission (EC) upgraded the acquis to include areas that were deemed problematic for the WB countries--justice and fundamental rights. It took into account the war crimes issues in the former Yugoslav states and the protection of minorities. It added a whole new chapter to the acquis which in the case of Croatia was the most problematic to close. (17) Learning from the Croatian experience, Chapter 23 is now opened at the beginning of negotiations to allow sufficient time for completion of domestic reforms.

To understand the Croatian experience, one also has to consider Croatia's unequivocal desire to join the EU. There was full consensus that this was the path to take. All the way through the accession process, Croatia never had an EU-sceptic party, certainly not an anti-EU party in the parliament. State leadership and institutions had full commitment to the EU membership.

So, the puzzle is this: if anywhere, one would expect that Europeanization takes place in a country which is small (around 4 million), which has full political consensus that EU membership is its strategic goal and which is exposed to the most elaborate criteria the EU has devised so far. If not in Croatia, then where?

However, deep social transformations take much longer periods and deeper public engagement than that which can be delivered through an EU accession process, regardless of how detailed a negotiation package is or how keen political leaders are to demonstrate that their country is fulfilling the criteria.

The EU accession is not a magic stick which changes the nature and the character of a country. It brings about important changes, but the country does not change its history nor its identity due to the technical process of negotiations. For this to happen, an intrinsic desire has to exist somewhere else, within the society. Usually it is missing because societies, just as individuals, do not like change and even if they try, since to change is hard, they frequently give up. To succeed in instilling liberal values, a society needs leaders who espouse these values, needs a determined contribution to these values by non-political actors, and needs a thorough educational programs that trains new generations in new ways of thinking.

Therefore, a possibility of social transformation created through EU negotiations, despite how elaborate the acquis is, has its logical limits. Expectations of what can be achieved through negotiations need to be lowered on the part of the EU. Expectations also need to be lowered on the part of an acceding country because many fall into the trap of imagining that EU membership would solve all their problems. As a rule, this does not happen. EU membership is not a panacea for the deep-ingrained challenges present in every society. In other words...