Yesterday, as on every 4 November, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos presented to the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) of the European Parliament the (progress) reports on the ten countries aiming for membership in the European Union and a summary assessment of the situation of each one; she completed the assessment after discussions and questions from MEPs. From this session the following conclusions can be drawn:

1- Montenegro joining in 2028?

According to the Commission, the candidate state that has a realistic chance of membership is Montenegro. Ms. Kos referred to June 2028 as a reasonable time for signing the EU Accession Treaty, while she sees the conclusion of negotiations at the end of this year. The above confirms the opinion we have expressed previously on the real chances of Montenegro becoming the 28th state of the EU. But it would be hasty to take membership for granted since ratification by the 27 current member states, including France, is not guaranteed.

2- Albania and eight other states “marking time”?

Albania and Moldova have an ambition to close the negotiating chapters at the end of 2027 / beginning of 2028 says Mrs. Kos, additional that it can be achieved if the necessary steps are taken. But this also applies to Ukraine, whose respective schedule is a few months later than than the above. But unlike Montenegro there is no indication of when the Treaty could be signed; even the word “accession” seems to have been avoided. Due to internal problems or external obstacles, the other 6 candidates (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Georgia) have not marked progress and have no timings for further steps.

3- “Phased accession” as the only alternative?

Mrs. Kos explained that, after the conceptual elaboration in Brussels of “phased accession”, at the beginning of 2027 a dialogue would start with the candidate countries on how they see the possibility of gradual inclusion in EU institutions and programs that until now were reserved for member states. We have often written in the last three years that the phased accession is the only realistic path for factual integration into the EU. The possible accession of Montenegro is only an exception that confirms this new rule for all the other candidates. Especially in the case of Albania it would be positive that conditionality for each integration step be treated with seriousness and rigor by the European Union. We say “especially” because not infrequently in the last decade the concrete conditions approved have been watered down, particularly by the European Commission. In the case of Albania the “enlargement for geopolitical reasons” as an additional motive mentioned these four years since the Russian aggression began is also relativized. In our case where the European and Euro-Atlantic orientation is supported by a broad political-social consensus, this motive more or less loses its meaning.

4- Reduction of protests as extension of the Potemkin Façade

Commissioner Kos (social democrat, Slovenia) supported by the parliamentary rapporteur for Albania Andreas Schieder (social democrat, Austria) claimed that the months-long protests in Albania were about environmental standards and that they expected from the government respective amendments in the laws on the environment and on strategic investors; they also expected dialogue on these issues between the government and the protesters. This claim is an avatar of the embellishing propaganda on the part of the Commission in the last decade in favour of the authoritarian and kleptocratic regime of Edi Rama. The Commissioner and the Rapporteur know very well that the protesters unwaveringly demand Rama’s resignation and a one-year caretaker government to prepare normal parliamentary elections. But they prefer to fabricate parallel realities. So does Commission President von der Leyen, who a few weeks ago in Tirana began her speech with a cynical “Dear Edi” (until recently she began with “Dear Aleksandar” in Belgrade). Likewise, a year ago in Tirana Ms. Kos called the 2025 parliamentary elections “free and fair” contradicting her own Commission’s report and that of the OSCE. And so on, there are plenty of examples. The minimalist improvements of the (progress) reports in the last three years through more realistic nuances in the description of the problems of the rule of law and democracy cannot balance the top level propaganda in front of TV cameras; those reports are read by few and are quickly forgotten.

The causes of this propaganda may be naivety or cynicism; the motives may be benign or not. But it is clear that the Commission’s approach so far is a calcifying factor for the current crisis and unfortunately oxygen for the regime. Fortunately, the European Parliament and the Council (member states) have from time to time demonstrated a realistic and principled approach.

* President of Paneuropa Albania