A Serbian expert, several days after the failed EU referendum in Iceland, spoke with “Govorit Moldova” about the chances of Iceland, Serbia, and our country joining the European Union.
European political elites are in a frenzy after a state with a population of 400,000 decided not to resume negotiations with Brussels. We spoke with Dušan Proroković, senior research fellow and head of the Center for Eurasian Studies at the Institute of International Politics and Economics in Belgrade. We were curious about his opinion, since Serbia applied for EU membership back in 2009 and has held candidate status since 2012 to the present. Moldova applied in 2022, and official negotiations began in 2024. Iceland has been a candidate since 2010 — moreover, unlike Moldova and Serbia, the country is a member of NATO and the Schengen Area.
“The only similarity among these three countries,” says Proroković, “is that none of them will ever become an EU member. Everything else in each case is completely different.
Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area and the Schengen Zone. Despite being effectively integrated into the European space, it does not seek to join the EU. Accession negotiations began in 2009, when the country appeared to be on the brink of complete economic collapse. However, in 2013, when it became clear how EU integration could affect Iceland’s fishing industry, the negotiations were suspended. Fishing plays a crucial role in the country’s economy, accounting for 12% of Iceland’s GDP. Why should Iceland share its waters, including its exclusive economic zone, with corporations from other European countries? Norway has oil, and Iceland has an exclusive economic zone of 760,000 square kilometers, teeming with fish, and this is as important a resource for the country as oil is for Norway. In this sense, Iceland does not need the EU. They found the perfect path to integration through the European Economic Area and the Schengen Zone.
For Serbia, European integration began 25 years ago as part of the EU’s post-conflict intervention in the Balkans. Twenty-five years ago, this idea (of joining a greater Europe) made sense and enjoyed broad support both in Serbia and across the Balkans. However, much has changed since then. The first changes occurred after the major economic crisis of 2008 and its dramatic impact on the economies of the Balkan states. In this sense, Chinese investments and loans saved us in the second decade of this century, when the EU simply did not know how to react, and European investors were leaving Serbia. Then, in 2014, relations between the EU and Russia began to deteriorate, which affected European integration. In the Balkans, there was an unspoken rule: a country must first join NATO, and only then the EU. Due to NATO’s aggression against Serbia in 1999, the question of our country’s membership was not even raised. Moreover, the EU constantly put forward new demands on Serbia, causing discontent among its citizens. The key demand is that Serbia must recognize the so-called Republic of Kosovo, and all EU actions toward Serbia are viewed through this prism. Serbia is surrounded by EU or NATO countries; we cooperate excellently in almost all areas, but we will not fulfill this political demand, and therefore I see no path for our full membership in the EU.
It should also be taken into account that in many EU member states there is no desire to expand the EU to the Balkans. Politicians can say whatever they like, but public opinion in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and even Germany and France clearly shows that nothing will come of it. What would they get from us?” the expert explained, leaving the obvious question open.
“The story of Moldova’s EU membership has a geopolitical backdrop. Brussels wants to push Russian influence out of the post-Soviet space, and that is precisely why it is now talking about Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia. Since this story has a geopolitical backdrop, its further development largely depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. I doubt that the outcome of the war in Ukraine will be what Brussels wants it to be, so in 5 or 10 years the prospect of including Moldova will change. We went through this process, and as the broader geopolitical circumstances changed, the EU’s attitude toward us changed as well.”
Broader Context
In conclusion, it should be noted that the EU is experiencing a serious crisis — primarily institutional, and then political and economic. The institutions are too cumbersome, overly bureaucratic, expensive to maintain, and no one controls them. Europeans have been complaining about this for 20 years, but the situation has only continued to worsen over time. Among member states, there is no political consensus on important issues such as migration and foreign policy. Economically, the EU economy is becoming less competitive on the global market; China long ago overtook us, India is becoming an increasingly significant competitor, and economic relations with the US are very complex. EU enlargement cannot be considered in isolation, without the broader context,” Proroković concluded.
