Where if not in NATO and EU

Robert Nesimi
Political analyst

On the 30^th of September voters will go to the polls to decide whether to approve the agreement with Greece or not. Normally during the campaign both sides should present their arguments about the consequences of voting “pro” or “against”, and offer a vision of where the country would be headed in each case. This time however the information is too asymmetrical. On one hand it is too well known where a “pro” vote leads. On the other, even the most ardent supporters of an “against” vote offer no vision of where the country would be heading in case they prevail. I believe this is because there is no good alternative to the agreement with Greece, and a refusal to approve it would plunge the country into uncharted territory.

The case for the agreement is quite clear and has been known for the past 25 years. The name issue with Greece has been the one obstacle to Macedonia’s integration in NATO and EU and the cause it now lags behind other countries of the region. Once the issue is solved, as a “pro” vote would do, the integration process can proceed unhindered. This will eventually result with full membership in both organizations. Macedonia would thus become a full member of the strongest, most prosperous organizations in the world. Rather than a country on the edge, it would have a seat in the main table and through these organizations would be part of decision-making on a global stage.

In case Macedonia rejects this future, there seem to be two other options about its role in the world, of which we get some hints in the “against” camp. One of these is the vision of Macedonia as a neutral country, open to all, the old dream of a “Switzerland of the Balkans”. This comparison to Switzerland is of course quite naive. To begin with Switzerland is not prosperous because it is neutral and outside of NATO and EU. A Macedonia outside these organizations would look more like a country on the edge of the continent, isolated even by its neighbours who are on their own track to EU and NATO membership. Rather than like Switzerland, outside of various continental and regional initiatives and projects, Macedonia would look more like a Belarus or Moldova, or in the worst case like Ukraine.

The other dream of the “against” camp is a Macedonia that looks increasingly to the East, seeking alternatives in partnerships with countries such as Russia, Turkey or China, or more collectively in groups such as BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Council. That path however is also naive and downright dangerous to the future of the country. In a column published a few years ago titled “The West or BRICS” I argued that this is no alternative for a prosperous Macedonia. In particular it suffers from two problems: the “East” is not even remotely as prosperous as the West, and there is really no “East” to speak of.

Arguably the East might have looked like an attractive alternative a few years ago, when the West was facing the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent sovereign debt crisis. Even then I argued that the setback is only temporary, and the East could not push ahead as long as it doesn’t fully embrace democracy and free market capitalism. That has become even clearer now. The developed economies of the West are now past the crisis, and even Greece, its weakest link, recently managed to successfully end its relief programme. Meanwhile economics crisis have now spread to other parts of the world, foremost in our would-be new partners such as Russia or Turkey. Clearly the “East” is no match for the “West”, and it would be foolish for Macedonia to shun the second for the first.

My second point was that in fact there is no “East” to speak of. What is on the table now for Macedonia is membership in two old, well-defined western institutions, NATO and EU. There is no counterpart to these in the East; the last such alternative was the Warsaw Pact that ended three decades ago. What is now known as the “East” or BRICS, or the Shanghai Group, are rather loose terms defining groups of countries that may sometimes cooperate, but just as often find themselves at odds with one another. By rejecting NATO and EU, Macedonia thus would not be invited and received open-armed in some other camp. It would have to face the world alone, dealing individually with countries that more often than not have no particular economic interest in the country.

To summarize, the decision Macedonia faces now goes far beyond the name issue and agreement with Greece. It is a once and for all decision whether to align itself with the West, or shun it in favor of other alternatives in the East. In the first case it would select to join the two most powerful and prosperous organizations in the world, and within them trace its path towards a more perfect democracy and free market capitalism. In the second, it would choose to shun them and face a dangerous world alone, or in dubious alliances with various eastern autocratic countries. The choice is ours and has to be made now.