EU Accession Approach To North Macedonia May Define The Region’s Integration Success

North Macedonia stands out as the regional champion of the Euro-Atlantic integrations. A NATO member state, North Macedonia has fulfilled all requirements and went beyond to start EU accession negotiations. However, recently Bulgaria jeopardized its EU accession negotiations by introducing the notion of falsification of history as a new EU accession criteria. Aware of the Bulgarian initiative’s problems, the Czech Republic and Slovakia rejected the new negotiation process criteria. Consequently, the Czech-Slovak rejection could lead to a much faster Western Balkans EU accession, free from future Bulgarian-alike proposals coming from the region.

North Macedonia has been working hard to secure its Euro-Atlantic membership. In 2017, the country signed an EU-oriented partnership agreement with Bulgaria, recognizing both countries’ territorial integrity, establishing a commission resolving differing historical views, and containing a pledge to protect their nationals’ minority rights. In 2019, Albanian became the second official language in the country, easing the inter-ethnic tensions between Macedonians and Albanians. The same year, North Macedonia’s government signed the Prespa agreement ending a three-decades-long dispute with Greece by adopting the name “The Republic of North Macedonia.” As a result, in March 2020, North Macedonia became the 30th NATO member state, concurrently receiving the green light on EU accession. However, on December 8, 2020, Bulgaria blocked North Macedonia’s EU membership negotiations. Bulgaria gave its consent to the Council’s conclusions on enlargement after additional reassurance that the EU-oriented partnership agreement’s success will become enlargement criteria for North Macedonia, only to face a Czech-Slovak veto.

The Czech-Slovak blockade came over Bulgarian attempt to introduce the notion of falsification of history as a criteria for the future EU enlargement. This proposal would have constituted a dangerous precedent if it reached EU consensus and potentially brought about further enlargement complications in the Western Balkans. Instead, the Czech Republic and Slovakia expressed a desire for a more pragmatic approach in the North Macedonia case, serving as a blueprint for Western Balkans EU enlargement. This approach would include mutually beneficial cooperation amid open bilateral questions, continuous loyalty between partners working together on standard solutions, explicit support on the path towards Euro-Atlantic integration, regular consultations to present a positive narrative in front of the other partners, and intersociety investments. In brief, an approach Bulgaria failed to offer in present North Macedonia’s case.

Failure to confront the Bulgarian initiative would almost certainly delay the region’s Euro-Atlantic integration. Even as the Czech-Slovakia approach might strengthen Eurosceptic and anti-enlargement positions short-term, it may introduce a better EU enlargement approach long-term, free from future Bulgarian-alike proposals coming from the region. This approach would make the Western Balkans partners agree on a matter before speaking to their EU counterparts. Concurrently, the Western Balkan partners would avoid using its EU position as leverage against future EU member states, as this approach would yield no results.