It is a historic breakthrough. The European Council cleared the way for accession negotiations with Ukraine and its neighbor, the Republic of Moldova. Georgia is also to be granted candidate status and accession talks with Bosnia-Herzegovina are to begin as soon as the country has fulfilled the conditions.
No one had expected it: Viktor Orbán, who had long threatened a veto, quickly gave up his resistance to the decision to enter into talks with Ukraine.
The circumstances are remarkable: he left the room at the crucial moment of the vote so that the required unanimity was possible. Two questions arise: will this example set a precedent, or will this be a way of circumventing unanimity in the future? And secondly, does this mean that Orbán has lost his threatening potential and the others will no longer take his attempts at blackmail seriously?
There was also movement in the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Initially, the Sherpas talked while the “bosses” dealt with the issue of accession talks. At around half past nine in the evening, Council President Charles Michel proposed a so-called “negobox” on the table. He had revised the billions downwards. The heads of state and government entered into a round of discussions.
All in all, the first day of the summit produced some astounding results. This suggests that the remaining points of contention can also be cleared up on the second day. Details can be found in the Analysis by Eric Bonse and Stephan Israel.
Surprise at the EU summit in Brussels: The heads of state and government have spoken out in favor of opening accession negotiations with Ukraine and neighboring Moldova. The decision was made by consensus without the Hungarian head of government Viktor Orbán. He subsequently distanced himself from it. However, this has no political or legal significance, it was said in Brussels.
Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz called the summit decision “a strong sign of support and a perspective for Ukraine”. Ukraine and Moldova were “part of the European family”. Council President Charles Michel spoke of a “historic moment”. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj celebrated a “victory for Ukraine” This was also “a victory for the whole of Europe. A victory that motivates, inspires and strengthens.”
Orbán, who had threatened a veto, did not take part in the decision. Scholz and other leading EU politicians had tried to change his mind until the very end – without success. However, as he left the room at the crucial moment, he was unable to say no. According to several EU diplomats, Scholz had the saving idea that Orbán could simply stay away from the decision-making process.
This procedure had been agreed with Orbán in advance, it was said. But there was still anger. Following the green light for Ukraine, the Hungarian spoke of a “completely senseless, irrational, and wrong decision”. He had abstained from voting. “26 other countries insisted that this decision be made,” he explained. “Therefore, Hungary has decided that if 26 other countries do this, they should go their own way.”
Nevertheless, the decision was made in the name of the entire EU – because Orbán did not veto it. The right-wing populist from Budapest, known as a chronic naysayer, chickened out at the decisive moment, according to the Brussels Council building. “In the end, the only thing that counts is whether you veto or not”, said Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo. Orbán should now “keep his mouth shut”.
The summit also decided to grant Georgia the status of a candidate country. This was also not expected. The EU member states also want to start accession talks with Bosnia-Herzegovina as soon as the country meets the conditions. Orbán had also campaigned for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Austria had also called for a perspective for the Western Balkans.
With these decisions, the long-discarded enlargement policy is picking up speed again. It is justified by geopolitical necessities. The aim is to oppose imperial Russia. However, accession talks should not begin immediately. Ukraine still has to implement a number of reforms and there is no formal negotiating framework. The Commission intends to report again in March.
It could be several months before the actual accession conference begins. North Macedonia serves as a deterrent example. The country was given the green light by the EU Commission back in 2018. However, the first accession conference could only be organized in July – due to a veto by Bulgaria. Ukraine and Moldova could also suffer a similar fate.
It will probably be years before the country actually joins the EU. However, it should be 2030 at the latest. By then, the EU also wants to implement the necessary reforms to make itself fit for enlargement. A roadmap for these reforms is to be drawn up under the Belgian Council Presidency by June 2024. According to a study by the Jacques Delors Centre, the accession of Ukraine alone could result in additional costs of 13.2 billion euros per year for the EU.
However, the stabilization of Ukraine already entails considerable burdens. The EU summit discussed a four-year aid package of €50 billion for Kyiv. The EU Commission wants to finance it in part by increasing the seven-year EU budget (Multiannual Financial Framework, MFF). In a first draft, there was talk of a total of €66 billion.
However, Scholz objected to this. Although he wants to support Ukraine financially, he rejects a generous increase in the MFF. Council President Michel presented a new proposal that would limit the increase to around €22 billion. However, this would be at the expense of current EU programs; new tasks in the areas of migration and competitiveness could also suffer from the cuts.
Michel’s proposal was therefore not initially accepted. Some EU states demanded more money for new joint tasks. Germany wanted to further limit the amount of fresh money. And then there was Orbán, who would prefer not to transfer any money to Ukraine at all and once again threatened to veto the proposal. After the coup over accession, a second showdown loomed – this time over money.
There is Aleksandar Vučić, who is valued by Western visitors as a “guarantor of stability” and praised for reforms. And there is the Serbian president who is returning to his ultra-nationalist roots, as he is doing now in the election campaign. Vučić called the early parliamentary elections in Serbia on Sunday to consolidate his power after mass protests over school shootings that left 19 people dead. It is also a diversionary tactic in the face of pressure from the international community to finally move forward with normalization with Kosovo.
The opposition had called for new elections, and now they are getting new elections, said Vučić. Serbia’s president dissolves parliament prematurely every two years on average. This helps to maintain the democratic façade and keep opponents of the regime on their toes. This time, an alliance of pro-European opposition parties is trying its luck under the slogan “Serbia against violence”, but the conditions are anything but fair. Opposition members only appear on state television or pro-regime channels such as Pink or Happy TV when they are being defamed.
Early elections were also held in just under half of the municipalities, which the president chose arbitrarily and probably with a view to mobilizing his clientele. As if on cue, the mayors in the capital Belgrade, and 60 other councils across the country had to resign. In view of the democratic deficits in Serbia, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called this week for fair access to the media for all candidates. In the past elections, there had also been pressure on voters and misuse of public funds.
It is well known that employees of the administration or state-affiliated companies have to show photos of their completed ballot papers or risk dismissal. But this is just one of various methods of voter manipulation.
Aleksandar Vučić has given 260 monologues on television this year alone, lasting an average of 38 minutes, as calculated by the non-governmental election observers from Crta. The president explains the world situation to the audience and presents himself as the father of the country, the only one who can guide Serbia through troubled waters in these turbulent times.
“In Serbia, we are alternately presented as enemies of the state, fascists or thieves”, says opposition politician Borko Stefanović. Vučić accuses the opposition of being prepared, unlike him, to give in to pressure from the West and “betray” Kosovo. This is one of the reasons why the opposition wants to talk about rampant corruption, violence in society, and nepotism during the election campaign.
During his visit to Berlin, Aleksandar Vučić found the right words and presented himself as a reliable partner who was the only one who could deliver on reforms and normalization with Kosovo.
According to opposition politician Stefanović, Western partners are all too happy to believe this and rely on Vučić as the only guarantor of stability in Serbia. In Belgrade, the nasty term “stabilocracy” is circulating, which is deliberately or unintentionally promoted from Brussels to Berlin. Aleksandar Vučić is causing a lot of instability in the region. Opposition and civil society are ignored during visits, as are the setbacks in democracy, minority rights and media freedom.
The opposition believes that long-standing German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who took Aleksandar Vučić under her wing at the time and paved the way for his ruling party SNS to join the conservative European People’s Party (EPP), is responsible. The Serbian president likes to talk about his “friend Angela”, who has met him bilaterally 16 times in nine years. Economic interests are also likely to have been at the center of these meetings.
For almost ten years now, Berlin has been financing an economic advisor who is based directly with President Vučić and acts as a door opener. Germany is the number one foreign investor in Serbia, but Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also praised Aleksandar Vučić for his reform course during a recent visit, although it is unclear which reforms might be meant.
Aleksandar Vučić began his career as an ultra-nationalist in the 1990s alongside Vojislav Šešelj and Slobodan Milošević, both of whom were later charged with war crimes in The Hague. At the beginning of his term of office ten years ago, he presented himself as a reformed pro-European who would lead the country into the EU. Now, in the prestigious election campaign for Belgrade, he is making a pact with the convicted war abuser Šešelj. This is in the hope of not losing the capital to the opposition, which only has any chance of winning there. According to the opposition, Vučić is showing his true colors with this alliance.
During a television appearance this week, the Serbian president made it clear that he is counting on Donald Trump returning to the White House and Ukraine being defeated. Serbia would have to “survive” until then and could then expect a “better geopolitical situation”. The country could also learn from Azerbaijan’s former president Heidar Aliyev and his son and successor Ilham Aliyev, who waited 27 years to “take back” Nagorno-Karabakh.
Large inscriptions on highway bridges and buildings across Serbia are already announcing the “return of the army to Kosovo” during the election campaign. In Brussels and Berlin, Vučić’s assurances should no longer be believed and the signs on the wall should be recognized.
The EU Parliament, Council, and Commission have reached a provisional agreement in the negotiations on the EU Due Diligence and Duty of Care Act (CSDDD). At another long trilogue meeting on Wednesday night, they were able to find compromises on the last contentious issues: Under pressure from the Council, the financial sector will initially be exempted from the obligations; the Parliament was again able to assert itself with regard to liability and the obligation to implement climate plans.
“This law is a historic breakthrough”, said EP rapporteur Lara Wolters on Thursday morning. She recalled the collapse of the Rana Plaza textile factory in Bangladesh in 2013: Ten years later, companies are now responsible for possible abuses in their value chain. “May this agreement be a tribute to the victims of this disaster and a starting point for shaping the economy of the future – an economy that puts the well-being of people and the planet above profits and short-sightedness“.
The CSDDD is similar in structure to the German Supply Chain Duty of Care Act (LkSG), but goes significantly further: while around 3,000 companies in Germany must report under the LkSG, there will be around 15,000 under the CSDDD. The CSDDD also focuses not only on direct suppliers like the LkSG, but also covers both the upstream value chain (such as the extraction of raw materials) and, in some cases, the downstream chain (use, recycling, disposal).
The most important results of the negotiations:
Several industry associations called on the Council and Parliament to reject the law in the upcoming votes. Thilo Brodtmann, Managing Director of the German Engineering Federation (VDMA), used drastic words: “With today’s agreement in the trilogue for a European supply chain law, the EU is delivering the next nail in the coffin for the international competitiveness of European industry“. The law is one in a long line of bureaucratic excesses from Brussels that will have to be shouldered by medium-sized industrial companies. There is no trace of the announcement that European companies would be relieved of 25 percent of bureaucratic obligations.
Tanja Gönner, Managing Director of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), expressed a similar view: the final text of the law threatens the competitiveness, security of supply, and diversification of the European economy, “as companies could withdraw from important third countries due to legally uncertain provisions and the resulting threat of sanctions and liability risks”. This would not benefit human rights and the environment, but harm them.
Researchers and experts from the academic world see things differently: “German companies that make a serious and conscientious effort to implement their obligations under the Supply Chain Act (…) have little to fear,” commented Markus Krajewski, Professor of Public Law and International Law at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. “On the contrary, the directive only has advantages for them: they have already adapted to the new rules and will no longer experience any distortions of competition“.
It will now be important for companies to take a strategic view of due diligence, explained Julia Hartmann, Professor of Management and Sustainability at EBS University in Oestrich-Winkel: “The protection of human rights is of increasing importance for corporate reputation worldwide”. In addition, companies that maintain close relationships with suppliers and transparent supply chains are much more resilient to crises. This could become a decisive factor.
Civil society sharply criticized the exception for the financial sector. The reactions were otherwise very positive: The “Supply Chain Act Initiative” spoke of a “milestone for the protection of people and the environment in global supply chains“. For example, the position of those affected in court would be improved, explained coordinator Johanna Kusch: “Unlike the German Supply Chain Act, it provides for civil liability if companies violate their due diligence obligations”.
The next steps are for the Council and Parliament to formally adopt the agreement. The law will then enter into force. As this is a directive, it is only binding once it has been transposed into national law. According to information from Table.Media, it is expected to take around two years for implementation in Parliament. The LkSG will therefore continue to apply in Germany, but adjustments will be necessary.
It is a historic breakthrough. The European Council cleared the way for accession negotiations with Ukraine and its neighbor, the Republic of Moldova. Georgia is also to be granted candidate status and accession talks with Bosnia-Herzegovina are to begin as soon as the country has fulfilled the conditions.
No one had expected it: Viktor Orbán, who had long threatened a veto, quickly gave up his resistance to the decision to enter into talks with Ukraine.
The circumstances are remarkable: he left the room at the crucial moment of the vote so that the required unanimity was possible. Two questions arise: will this example set a precedent, or will this be a way of circumventing unanimity in the future? And secondly, does this mean that Orbán has lost his threatening potential and the others will no longer take his attempts at blackmail seriously?
There was also movement in the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Initially, the Sherpas talked while the “bosses” dealt with the issue of accession talks. At around half past nine in the evening, Council President Charles Michel proposed a so-called “negobox” on the table. He had revised the billions downwards. The heads of state and government entered into a round of discussions.
All in all, the first day of the summit produced some astounding results. This suggests that the remaining points of contention can also be cleared up on the second day. Details can be found in the Analysis by Eric Bonse and Stephan Israel.
Surprise at the EU summit in Brussels: The heads of state and government have spoken out in favor of opening accession negotiations with Ukraine and neighboring Moldova. The decision was made by consensus without the Hungarian head of government Viktor Orbán. He subsequently distanced himself from it. However, this has no political or legal significance, it was said in Brussels.
Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz called the summit decision “a strong sign of support and a perspective for Ukraine”. Ukraine and Moldova were “part of the European family”. Council President Charles Michel spoke of a “historic moment”. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj celebrated a “victory for Ukraine” This was also “a victory for the whole of Europe. A victory that motivates, inspires and strengthens.”
Orbán, who had threatened a veto, did not take part in the decision. Scholz and other leading EU politicians had tried to change his mind until the very end – without success. However, as he left the room at the crucial moment, he was unable to say no. According to several EU diplomats, Scholz had the saving idea that Orbán could simply stay away from the decision-making process.
This procedure had been agreed with Orbán in advance, it was said. But there was still anger. Following the green light for Ukraine, the Hungarian spoke of a “completely senseless, irrational, and wrong decision”. He had abstained from voting. “26 other countries insisted that this decision be made,” he explained. “Therefore, Hungary has decided that if 26 other countries do this, they should go their own way.”
Nevertheless, the decision was made in the name of the entire EU – because Orbán did not veto it. The right-wing populist from Budapest, known as a chronic naysayer, chickened out at the decisive moment, according to the Brussels Council building. “In the end, the only thing that counts is whether you veto or not”, said Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo. Orbán should now “keep his mouth shut”.
The summit also decided to grant Georgia the status of a candidate country. This was also not expected. The EU member states also want to start accession talks with Bosnia-Herzegovina as soon as the country meets the conditions. Orbán had also campaigned for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Austria had also called for a perspective for the Western Balkans.
With these decisions, the long-discarded enlargement policy is picking up speed again. It is justified by geopolitical necessities. The aim is to oppose imperial Russia. However, accession talks should not begin immediately. Ukraine still has to implement a number of reforms and there is no formal negotiating framework. The Commission intends to report again in March.
It could be several months before the actual accession conference begins. North Macedonia serves as a deterrent example. The country was given the green light by the EU Commission back in 2018. However, the first accession conference could only be organized in July – due to a veto by Bulgaria. Ukraine and Moldova could also suffer a similar fate.
It will probably be years before the country actually joins the EU. However, it should be 2030 at the latest. By then, the EU also wants to implement the necessary reforms to make itself fit for enlargement. A roadmap for these reforms is to be drawn up under the Belgian Council Presidency by June 2024. According to a study by the Jacques Delors Centre, the accession of Ukraine alone could result in additional costs of 13.2 billion euros per year for the EU.
However, the stabilization of Ukraine already entails considerable burdens. The EU summit discussed a four-year aid package of €50 billion for Kyiv. The EU Commission wants to finance it in part by increasing the seven-year EU budget (Multiannual Financial Framework, MFF). In a first draft, there was talk of a total of €66 billion.
However, Scholz objected to this. Although he wants to support Ukraine financially, he rejects a generous increase in the MFF. Council President Michel presented a new proposal that would limit the increase to around €22 billion. However, this would be at the expense of current EU programs; new tasks in the areas of migration and competitiveness could also suffer from the cuts.
Michel’s proposal was therefore not initially accepted. Some EU states demanded more money for new joint tasks. Germany wanted to further limit the amount of fresh money. And then there was Orbán, who would prefer not to transfer any money to Ukraine at all and once again threatened to veto the proposal. After the coup over accession, a second showdown loomed – this time over money.
There is Aleksandar Vučić, who is valued by Western visitors as a “guarantor of stability” and praised for reforms. And there is the Serbian president who is returning to his ultra-nationalist roots, as he is doing now in the election campaign. Vučić called the early parliamentary elections in Serbia on Sunday to consolidate his power after mass protests over school shootings that left 19 people dead. It is also a diversionary tactic in the face of pressure from the international community to finally move forward with normalization with Kosovo.
The opposition had called for new elections, and now they are getting new elections, said Vučić. Serbia’s president dissolves parliament prematurely every two years on average. This helps to maintain the democratic façade and keep opponents of the regime on their toes. This time, an alliance of pro-European opposition parties is trying its luck under the slogan “Serbia against violence”, but the conditions are anything but fair. Opposition members only appear on state television or pro-regime channels such as Pink or Happy TV when they are being defamed.
Early elections were also held in just under half of the municipalities, which the president chose arbitrarily and probably with a view to mobilizing his clientele. As if on cue, the mayors in the capital Belgrade, and 60 other councils across the country had to resign. In view of the democratic deficits in Serbia, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called this week for fair access to the media for all candidates. In the past elections, there had also been pressure on voters and misuse of public funds.
It is well known that employees of the administration or state-affiliated companies have to show photos of their completed ballot papers or risk dismissal. But this is just one of various methods of voter manipulation.
Aleksandar Vučić has given 260 monologues on television this year alone, lasting an average of 38 minutes, as calculated by the non-governmental election observers from Crta. The president explains the world situation to the audience and presents himself as the father of the country, the only one who can guide Serbia through troubled waters in these turbulent times.
“In Serbia, we are alternately presented as enemies of the state, fascists or thieves”, says opposition politician Borko Stefanović. Vučić accuses the opposition of being prepared, unlike him, to give in to pressure from the West and “betray” Kosovo. This is one of the reasons why the opposition wants to talk about rampant corruption, violence in society, and nepotism during the election campaign.
During his visit to Berlin, Aleksandar Vučić found the right words and presented himself as a reliable partner who was the only one who could deliver on reforms and normalization with Kosovo.
According to opposition politician Stefanović, Western partners are all too happy to believe this and rely on Vučić as the only guarantor of stability in Serbia. In Belgrade, the nasty term “stabilocracy” is circulating, which is deliberately or unintentionally promoted from Brussels to Berlin. Aleksandar Vučić is causing a lot of instability in the region. Opposition and civil society are ignored during visits, as are the setbacks in democracy, minority rights and media freedom.
The opposition believes that long-standing German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who took Aleksandar Vučić under her wing at the time and paved the way for his ruling party SNS to join the conservative European People’s Party (EPP), is responsible. The Serbian president likes to talk about his “friend Angela”, who has met him bilaterally 16 times in nine years. Economic interests are also likely to have been at the center of these meetings.
For almost ten years now, Berlin has been financing an economic advisor who is based directly with President Vučić and acts as a door opener. Germany is the number one foreign investor in Serbia, but Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also praised Aleksandar Vučić for his reform course during a recent visit, although it is unclear which reforms might be meant.
Aleksandar Vučić began his career as an ultra-nationalist in the 1990s alongside Vojislav Šešelj and Slobodan Milošević, both of whom were later charged with war crimes in The Hague. At the beginning of his term of office ten years ago, he presented himself as a reformed pro-European who would lead the country into the EU. Now, in the prestigious election campaign for Belgrade, he is making a pact with the convicted war abuser Šešelj. This is in the hope of not losing the capital to the opposition, which only has any chance of winning there. According to the opposition, Vučić is showing his true colors with this alliance.
During a television appearance this week, the Serbian president made it clear that he is counting on Donald Trump returning to the White House and Ukraine being defeated. Serbia would have to “survive” until then and could then expect a “better geopolitical situation”. The country could also learn from Azerbaijan’s former president Heidar Aliyev and his son and successor Ilham Aliyev, who waited 27 years to “take back” Nagorno-Karabakh.
Large inscriptions on highway bridges and buildings across Serbia are already announcing the “return of the army to Kosovo” during the election campaign. In Brussels and Berlin, Vučić’s assurances should no longer be believed and the signs on the wall should be recognized.
The EU Parliament, Council, and Commission have reached a provisional agreement in the negotiations on the EU Due Diligence and Duty of Care Act (CSDDD). At another long trilogue meeting on Wednesday night, they were able to find compromises on the last contentious issues: Under pressure from the Council, the financial sector will initially be exempted from the obligations; the Parliament was again able to assert itself with regard to liability and the obligation to implement climate plans.
“This law is a historic breakthrough”, said EP rapporteur Lara Wolters on Thursday morning. She recalled the collapse of the Rana Plaza textile factory in Bangladesh in 2013: Ten years later, companies are now responsible for possible abuses in their value chain. “May this agreement be a tribute to the victims of this disaster and a starting point for shaping the economy of the future – an economy that puts the well-being of people and the planet above profits and short-sightedness“.
The CSDDD is similar in structure to the German Supply Chain Duty of Care Act (LkSG), but goes significantly further: while around 3,000 companies in Germany must report under the LkSG, there will be around 15,000 under the CSDDD. The CSDDD also focuses not only on direct suppliers like the LkSG, but also covers both the upstream value chain (such as the extraction of raw materials) and, in some cases, the downstream chain (use, recycling, disposal).
The most important results of the negotiations:
Several industry associations called on the Council and Parliament to reject the law in the upcoming votes. Thilo Brodtmann, Managing Director of the German Engineering Federation (VDMA), used drastic words: “With today’s agreement in the trilogue for a European supply chain law, the EU is delivering the next nail in the coffin for the international competitiveness of European industry“. The law is one in a long line of bureaucratic excesses from Brussels that will have to be shouldered by medium-sized industrial companies. There is no trace of the announcement that European companies would be relieved of 25 percent of bureaucratic obligations.
Tanja Gönner, Managing Director of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), expressed a similar view: the final text of the law threatens the competitiveness, security of supply, and diversification of the European economy, “as companies could withdraw from important third countries due to legally uncertain provisions and the resulting threat of sanctions and liability risks”. This would not benefit human rights and the environment, but harm them.
Researchers and experts from the academic world see things differently: “German companies that make a serious and conscientious effort to implement their obligations under the Supply Chain Act (…) have little to fear,” commented Markus Krajewski, Professor of Public Law and International Law at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. “On the contrary, the directive only has advantages for them: they have already adapted to the new rules and will no longer experience any distortions of competition“.
It will now be important for companies to take a strategic view of due diligence, explained Julia Hartmann, Professor of Management and Sustainability at EBS University in Oestrich-Winkel: “The protection of human rights is of increasing importance for corporate reputation worldwide”. In addition, companies that maintain close relationships with suppliers and transparent supply chains are much more resilient to crises. This could become a decisive factor.
Civil society sharply criticized the exception for the financial sector. The reactions were otherwise very positive: The “Supply Chain Act Initiative” spoke of a “milestone for the protection of people and the environment in global supply chains“. For example, the position of those affected in court would be improved, explained coordinator Johanna Kusch: “Unlike the German Supply Chain Act, it provides for civil liability if companies violate their due diligence obligations”.
The next steps are for the Council and Parliament to formally adopt the agreement. The law will then enter into force. As this is a directive, it is only binding once it has been transposed into national law. According to information from Table.Media, it is expected to take around two years for implementation in Parliament. The LkSG will therefore continue to apply in Germany, but adjustments will be necessary.
