Donald Trump’s clash with Europe is not limited to Greenland and NATO. Another, quieter rivalry is unfolding in parallel in the Balkans.
Të lidhura
None found
Following the devastation caused by the wars in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, the United States and Europe worked together to rebuild the region. Today, however, they are competing for influence, power and financial interests.
What consequences could this rivalry have for the Balkans?
By the term Western Balkans, the European Union refers to six countries near its borders: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro.
According to the EU, all six countries should become members once they have implemented a series of reforms in the rule of law and the economy. However, progress toward membership has stalled, while major obstacles remain. These include simmering separatism in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the dispute between Serbia and Kosovo.
For many years, Washington supported the Western Balkans’ accession to the EU. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic secretary of state at the time, said that the two sides were united in their goal of bringing the countries of the region into NATO and the European Union as quickly as possible.
The American side is now taking a different position. Donald Trump Jr. has said that, although it is not politically correct to say so, it is very clear that Europe is a disaster.
The shift in this policy concerns two areas: security and the economy. In terms of security, the US State Department recently announced that the era of US-led nation-building is over.
But what does such a statement mean in practice?
The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, known simply as Bosnia, illustrates this change. The country, scarred by the brutal war of the 1990s, has three main ethnic communities: Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.
In 1995, a power-sharing mechanism was established under US leadership to end the conflicts among them. It is often described as the most complicated political system in the world. Today, the US and Europe disagree over one of its most powerful positions, that of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This position is unique: it is held by a foreign official, usually a European, who has broad powers to intervene in Bosnian politics. The official’s mission is to prevent the country from sliding back into conflict. However, the High Representative is not elected by the citizens of Bosnia but appointed by other countries and organizations.
German politician Christian Schmidt was the latest High Representative. After leaving office, he said that the US had pushed him toward that decision.
While the Trump administration seeks to reduce the High Representative’s powers, the European Union continues to insist that a diplomat should have the final say in Bosnia.
Marko Prelec of the International Crisis Group believes the US position on this issue is justified. According to him, 30 years after the end of hostilities, it is very difficult to justify the existence of an internationally appointed official with the level of power exercised by the High Representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Office of the High Representative has long been caught up in Europe’s geopolitical rivalry. Russia opposed the last High Representative, as did its local ally, Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb leader.
Dodik threatened to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina and unite the Bosnian Serb territories with neighboring Serbia. He said there was no hiding the fact that this was one Serbian nation, that this nation’s call for unity could not be destroyed, that it deserved a common state and that this path could not be stopped.
In the past, the United States and Europe coordinated their response to such threats. Dodik was even placed under US sanctions and targeted by Bosnian courts. However, he avoided arrest, drew closer to the MAGA movement and celebrated Trump’s victory.
Dodik later eased tensions and left the government, but he remains the de facto leader of the Bosnian Serbs. In return, the Trump administration removed him from the sanctions list.
The United States says it will work with all local actors to increase stability. Within the EU, meanwhile, there are fears that this approach could encourage Dodik to attempt to change borders.
Marko Prelec of the International Crisis Group is concerned that Balkan actors could be inspired by the way the war in Ukraine ends. According to him, if Western powers accept a territorial change imposed by force in Ukraine, there will certainly be actors in the Balkans who will demand the same.
Prelec believes Serbia could use this argument regarding Kosovo and its northern region, while the Bosnian Serbs could also seek secession.
There is therefore a great deal at stake in terms of security. However, the US says its main priority in the region is now the economy.
At the heart of this interest is the transportation of liquefied natural gas. A floating liquefied natural gas terminal is anchored near a Croatian island.
From this terminal, the United States aims to export gas to the Western Balkan countries, which until now have been supplied mainly by Russia. The American proposal is ambitious.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright describes these terminals as Trump’s “peace pipelines.” This means that President Trump favors energy as a form of peace achieved through trade.
In a region where foreign capital is badly needed, the creation of new trade links is naturally welcome. But Marko Prelec of the International Crisis Group warns of a problematic aspect.
According to him, the situation becomes complicated and quite damaging both for the region and for transatlantic relations because the Trump administration, in its second term, is openly favoring several highly questionable US companies linked in various ways to President Trump and his family. Prelec says this resembles a form of corruption.
One investment currently stalled in Bosnia concerns a planned pipeline known as the “Southern Interconnection.” The project envisages transporting liquefied natural gas from the Croatian terminal through Bosnia to Serbia.
For years, the project made no progress. But after renewed US interest emerged, the procedures began moving at an unusual speed. Special legislation was drafted through which the project was awarded without a tender to a US company with no previous experience in the gas trade.
The company is run by Trump’s former lawyer and the brother of his former adviser. Ivana Korajlic of Transparency International describes the situation as an absurd reality, noting that the US was once the leading promoter of democratic values throughout the region.
Korajlic, who heads Transparency International’s work in Bosnia and Herzegovina, says there is now not even any pretense of respecting the rule of law and domestic institutions.
Marko Prelec emphasizes that this behavior is particularly insulting to the European Union, which bases a large part of its identity on proper accounting practices, the rule of law, fair trade and a level playing field.
For a long time, the EU has been trying to integrate the Western Balkan countries into its energy market, even though they are not yet members of the bloc.
The European Union has also warned Bosnia that it could lose support if it fails to implement common market rules. Other US energy agreements in the region, specifically in Macedonia, Albania and Serbia, are also undergoing additional scrutiny.
In Serbia, the tender conditions for the construction of a new hydroelectric power plant stipulated that only US companies were eligible to apply. Europe’s dissatisfaction was therefore to be expected.
Nevertheless, Europe remains far ahead of the United States in investment in the Western Balkans. More than half of all investment comes from the EU, while the US contribution is less than 3%.
The credibility of the EU’s membership promise is fading
What, then, is the bloc doing to curb the influence of people in Trump’s “orbit”?
Ivana Korajlic notes that, unfortunately, the EU’s response has not been strong enough and that it needs to act much more quickly.
Marko Prelec of the International Crisis Group points out that, for whatever reason, the European Union does not carry out large or very large projects in the Western Balkans. According to him, the EU has no major initiative it can present as an achievement.
By contrast, when the US announces that it will bring in an investment of $2 billion, the news becomes a major story and everyone hears about it.
The most attractive tool the EU has to exert influence over the Western Balkans remains the prospect of membership in the bloc in exchange for reforms. But this promise is steadily losing credibility.
Prelec recalls that the citizens of the Western Balkans have been hearing about European integration for decades. Since Croatia joined in 2013, no one else has become a member for 13 years. For this reason, he says, people must once again be convinced that membership will actually happen.
The EU may soon have an opportunity to prove this, as Montenegro is nearing the conclusion of its accession negotiations and aims to join the bloc in 2028.
France and Germany are already seeking a more flexible approach aimed at keeping countries motivated and ensuring that European influence is maintained. Under this proposal, candidate countries would be offered early access to EU programs and markets before gaining full membership.
Similar initiatives are proposed every few years, but Brussels’ main focus continues to shift toward larger crises. This time, growing US influence could push the EU to take a concrete step in the Balkans.
In one sense, increased interest and investment could be positive for the Western Balkans. However, some voices in the region fear that the clash between the US and the EU could fuel instability, particularly if Washington no longer puts democracy first and instead focuses on short-term deals.
Three decades after the wars, the divide between the United States and Europe appears to risk creating further divisions in the Western Balkans. / Deutsche Welle
