The Illusionists of Brussels

The Illusionists of Brussels

By Genc Pollo, President of Paneuropa-Albania

On March 30th, Director-General for Enlargement at the European Commission, Gert-Jan Koopman, delivered optimistic assessments of Albania’s progress during a debate in The Hague. Koopman stated that reforms were underway and unprecedented advancements had been made, leading to the opening of all negotiation chapters within a year – a remarkably rapid pace. He predicted the closure of these chapters by 2027, contingent on continued reform efforts.

However, just two days later, COELA, the Working Party on Enlargement of the Council of the EU, rejected the European Commission’s proposed Interim Benchmark Assessment Report (IBAR) for Albania. Nine member states – Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, and Sweden – opposed the report, citing concerns including uncorrected embezzlement with the IPARD fund and alleged abuse of property rights. The persistent issue of the Balluku case – the parliamentary immunity granted to the indicted former Infrastructure Minister – was a central point of contention.

The stark contrast between Koopman’s optimistic outlook and the dissenting positions of this blocking minority highlights a significant disconnect. The nine member states’ concerns, framed as “insufficient progress,” reflect a critical assessment of Albania’s political and governance landscape. Many observers believe Albania operates under an authoritarian and kleptocratic regime, fundamentally at odds with European values.

Public criticism of corruption, a consequence of state capture, is often misdirected. Concerns regarding state capture, exemplified by instances like the AKShI/Agasi case – where manipulated border systems facilitated criminal activity and properties disappeared from the Cadastre – underscore the severity of the situation. The theft of millions of euros in taxpayer funds appears comparatively minor in the context of systemic issues.

Furthermore, Koopman’s presentation appears unrealistic, relying on a narrative that doesn’t align with the realities on the ground. This suggests a deliberate effort to present a favorable image to the Council, the European Parliament, and public opinion. This pattern of divergence is not new.

The European Commission has previously proposed opening negotiations three times without success, as evidenced by the German CDU’s fact-finding missions in Albania prior to 2019, which revealed a markedly different situation than reported by Brussels. These missions led to the establishment of specific conditions for accession. More broadly, the situation reflects a potential influence of new geopolitical realities.

The European Commission’s need for a demonstrable success story – a motivation that can be seen as prioritizing political expediency over genuine assessment – appears to be driving this approach. This behavior, observed in Albania years prior to the current conflict in Ukraine, raises questions about the Commission’s priorities. The actions of officials such as EU Ambassador Gonzato, who focused solely on the principle of “presumption of innocence” during discussions regarding the Balluku case, further highlight this disconnect.

Similarly, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos’s response following Balluku’s suspension, shifting the focus to “inappropriate societal reaction,” demonstrates a reluctance to directly address systemic issues. Ultimately, the debate surrounding Albania’s EU accession reveals a complex interplay of political considerations and genuine concerns about the country’s progress toward upholding European values.

Topics: #illusionists #brussels #albania