“I am very pleased to have welcomed my colleagues from the countries of the Western Balkans, the neighbouring EU member states, the European Commission and the European External Action Service to Thessaloniki today.
More specifically, today we had the opportunity to host, here in Thessaloniki, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, Croatia (the current Presidency of the Council of the EU), Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia, as well as the Albanian Foreign Minister-in-Office, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affair’s Secretaries General for European and regional affairs. The Secretary General of the European External Action Service and the European Commission’s Deputy Director-General for Enlargement issues also participated. Additionally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo attended. The Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Luigi Di Maio, was unable to attend due to the Covid-19 problem in Italy.
We had a very fruitful discussion, an exchange of views and ideas, both during our first session and during the luncheon that followed, about the Western Balkan countries’ EU accession perspective.
I can safely sum up our common position: We support the European perspective of all the countries of the Western Balkans, on the obvious condition that these countries fully comply with the European acquis and the terms and conditions of the accession process, known as conditionality.
The reason is clear. Because we believe that the full political, economic and physical accession of all these countries to the European Union will, on the one hand, benefit the Union itself, which will gain geographical continuity from Ireland to Cyprus, and on the other hand, because accession, intrinsically and as a natural extension of the reforms that will have preceded it, is the strongest guarantee of the growth and prosperity of the Balkan peoples and the stability of south-east Europe.
In this effort towards the European integration of the Western Balkans, Greece has always been the motor force. After all, the city of Thessaloniki is historically identified with the European future of the countries of the region: The 2003 Thessaloniki Agenda opened the way for these countries to join the European family.
Today, 17 years later, the city is again a point of reference for the regional accession perspective, in an effort that will culminate in the EU-Western Balkans Conference to be held in the capital of Croatia.
I think that today, in smooth coordination and cooperation with the Croatian presidency, we succeeded in preparing the way ahead of the Zagreb Summit Meeting, collectively reconfirming that the future of the Balkans, and of the Western Balkans in particular, must be within the European Union.
The confirmation of the European Perspective of the Western Balkans is taking on great value, constituting a strategic investment in a united Europe, stable and strong, in the wake of the unfortunate voluntary withdrawal of the United Kingdom – Brexit, in other words – from our common home, as well as in the shadow of the constantly increasing regional and global challenges that few, if any, states can confront on their own.
So today, the candidate countries and those countries that have a longer road ahead of them had the opportunity to be heard, to express their positions and views ahead of the adoption of the new Enlargement methodology. They also reaffirmed their commitment to instituting the requisite reforms.
And today I think we sent a joint message on the importance of the accession course and the eventual accession of the Western Balkans to the EU, as well as on our commitment, as the EU, to keeping the accession perspective of these countries alive.
Thank you very much.”
MODERATOR: Please state the outlet you represent and the Minister you are addressing your question to. Mr. Tzimas, please.
JOURNALIST: I’m Stavros Tzimas. I’m a reporter with the newspaper Kathimerini. My question is for Mr. Dendias as well as his Croatian counterpart. At the next conference, all indications are that there will be a discussion of North Macedonia and Albania’s applications for EU membership – a starting date for the negotiations. I want to ask this: What is the conference’s position, if it was discussed, and what was the conference’s position, but especially the individual positions of Athens and the Croatian Presidency? Are these two countries seen as a package? Or will they be separated, if necessary, if it is decided, for example, that North Macedonia is more advanced in terms of satisfying the requirements, the criteria? Might they be separated, with Albania being put off for later, or vice versa? Or are they a package?
[…]
N. DENDIAS: Thank you very much for the question. First of all, I will reiterate Gordan’s statement. The goal and the initial working hypothesis is that these two countries, North Macedonia and Albania, will satisfy the conditionalities, which will allow for an opening date, preferably in March, to be given for the two countries’ negotiations. For both countries.
This is what Greece wants. It is what our country hopes for. Since 2003, our country has consistently pursued the enlargement of the European Union in the region and the participation of the Balkan countries and the countries of the Western Balkans in the single European endeavour. We believe this helps these countries, helps Europe, helps all of us to create a society of free movement and development of human personality. And the economy. On the other hand, of course, certain conditionalities remain to be met, especially by the Albanian side. We’re monitoring the situation. We hope both countries will be ready and we won’t be facing any difficult dilemmas.
JOURNALIST: From To Vima. My question is for the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs. Minister, you referred to conditionality issues in the case of Albania. Just a few days ago, the Albanian Prime Minister, Mr. Rama, sent the property law to Parliament again, but apparently without the country’s complying with the provisions of the Venice Commission’s report, and also pending is the matter of self-identification ahead of the census in our neighbouring country. If these two conditionalities are not met, might Greece change its stance on promotion of both countries and on giving a date for the opening of accession negotiations as a package, or is there a possibility we’ll change our stance? Thank you very much.
N. DENDIAS: Mr. Athanasopoulos, as Gordan, my Croatian colleague and friend, said earlier, we take a positive view of things. We don’t see the conditionalities as something imposed from the outside on the societies and governments of these countries.
We see them as an internal process of compliance with the European Acquis. Allow me to say that the issues concerning protection of minorities, like the issues that concern the protection of property rights, property in general, are the hard core of European Law. This isn't an issue that concerns our bilateral relations with Albania. It is a matter of this country’s compliance with the European acquis. So we want to take a positive view of things We believe that Albania sees the need to comply. We don’t want to impose anything on it. We aren’t forcing the situation. We realise that Albania sees the course towards a date for the opening of negotiations and, after that, the course of the negotiations as a long and ongoing process of compliance and incorporation of the European acquis. After all, this is the overall goal of the European endeavour. The creation of a single area, economic growth, protection of human rights – an important endeavour in the history of humanity. So, we think that Albania, seeing things this way, has every reason to follow this example, of protection of property rights and protection of minorities.
MODERATOR: The Ministers will take one more question, because they have to leave for Geneva.
JOURNALIST: Giorgos Georgiadis from ERT 3. The question is for Mr. Dendias. The elections in North Macedonia are set for 12 April and the polls currently give the opposition party something of a lead. If this is reflected in the actual elections and there is a political change in our neighbouring country, according to what we know of their agenda, they want to formulate the Prespa Agreement on another level – they want to make changes. If we have a political change in our neighbouring country, would the Greek government discuss changes to even a single article of the Prespa Agreement, or would you veto this because an attempt is being made to unilaterally change the agreement?
N. DENDIAS: Allow me to say, in spite of the completely justifiable sensitivity you express in your question. You are a reporter for ERT 3, in Macedonia. I cannot respond to questions based on hypothetical scenarios. In other words, I can't accept an election result as a working hypothesis – in any form, not just what you referred to regarding a neighbouring and friendly country – and, based on that working hypothesis, respond as to the future stance of the Greek government. But if I had to express a free thought, without a question, I would say that Kyriakos Mitsotakis has set an example of how states in modern life and in contemporary societies have continuity. Thank you very much.
February 24, 2020