11^th December 2020 – CEP’s programme director, Milena Lazarevic, participated in the online discussion; “What Future for EU Enlargement in Pandemic Times”? organised by the Aspen Institute. The online discussion was also participated by Florian Bieber, a professor for Southeastern Europe at the University of Graz, Majlinda Bregu, the Secretary-General, Regional Cooperation Council (RCC), Ambassador Susanne Schutz, the Director for South-Eastern Europe and the discussion was moderated by Adelheid Wolfl, South Eastern Europe correspondent for Der Standard, based in Sarajevo.

Excluding the devastating consequences brought on by the pandemic, there are vital political divisions in many countries in Europe and within the European Union (EU). Additionally, we have seen an ambitious German Presidency that was met with a special set of economic, political and social challenges set forth this year.

Assessing the German Presidency thus far, Ambassador Susanne Schutz, emphasised that since the presidency started on the 1^st of July, Western Balkans (WB) was high on its agenda, particularly looking at the Council decision for Albania and North Macedonia to commence the negotiations for the EU membership. Thus, there have been positive measures takes regarding the EU Enlargement process in the Western Balkans, even during the pandemic.

Confronted with the possibility of a second wave, the countries in the Western Balkans have suffered a serious economic impact as can be seen by the substantial drop in GDP for many Western Balkan countries. Looking at the economic and political consequences, Genoveva Ruiz Calavera expressed that it has allowed the region and the EU to work together in an unprecedented manner. The EU has introduced the first package of €3.3 billion in April accompanied by the weekly deliveries of health protection equipment and joint procurement initiatives. Calavera also emphasized that due to there being a high possibility of a third wave, the EU has set forth a package on the 6^th October, the Economic and Investment Plan (EIP), which is comprised of €9 billion donor grants funding.

Referring to and evaluating the EIP, Milena Lazarevic indicated thatthe plan is unique as it is a single portfolio that is meant for an economic long-term recovery of the region. However, Lazarevic specified that the EIP is part of the the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA). Nonetheless, considering that the EIP excludes Turkey, means that the countries in the region will get a much more sizeable monetary support. Furthermore, Lazarevic expressed her doubts on whether the EIP will be enough to close the development gap in the region and the danger it might pose in attracting actors that offer loans at a much more politically convenient rate, which lures the political establishments away from the EU.

Additionally, she drew attention to the necessity of holding political leaders in the region accountable and for it to be done publicly and “not behind closed doors”. Especially this year, the annual EC report mentioned that the government is “[…] breaching its legislation”, which is a serious statement to make. Lastly, in answering the question on the issue of alignment, Lazarevic pointed out that the concern here is not only the influence of Russia, but China as well, which is why Serbia did not follow up on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) statements.

With the endorsement of the Common Regional Market (CRM) at the Sofia Summit, Majlinda Bregu stated that the region needs to take concrete steps and move forward as one common single market, otherwise it will be impossible to have big investors approaching the region. The market reflects the post-pandemic recovery in the Balkans, that will be economically, highly beneficial. The way to succeed in the establishment of the market is on the politicians and the local stakeholders. When it comes to the short-term assistance to the region the attention will be focused on financing the public health services and ensuring the countries in the region can buy the vaccine for COVID-19. Nonetheless, according to Bregu, all the help from the EU will not be enough to close the financing gap left by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Until recently, North Macedonia’s path to EU membership seemed optimistic, until Bulgaria’s VETO, which was attributed to the unresolved historical issues between the two countries. Florian Bieber said that Bulgaria’s VETO is evidence of how fragile the accession process, as it gives an example to other member states to abuse their power. If there is no change in the way the accession process is managed from the EU side delivering membership and not being blocked on multiple points, but also changing the whole perception of the EU region, which is no longer seen as merit-based. This also deflects the transformative power of the EU enlargement process. Can the creation of a WB regional market be an alternative to the EU membership? According to Bieber: “Regional cooperation is great, but it is by no means an alternative to the EU membership because all the indications are that it would economically have a nice but not a dramatic impact.”

Furthermore, he highlighted that the enlargement process is a way to fix the issues within the rule of law and democracy and if it becomes a game of waiting for 20 years in the eyes of the citizens, then it will discourage the leaders in the region to engage in serious reforms in rule of law. The issue of the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue is that any permanent settlement between the two countries requires a strong incentive, which is the EU membership. However, even if the two countries agree to full normalisation of relations, it might not stop an EU member state to intervene and halt the accession process.

In conclusion, for the enlargement process to be successful, it is expected of the WB countries to exhibit cooperation, specifically in creating the regional common market- which would make the region more susceptible to much larger EU investments. Arguably, the credibility of the EU enlargement process has suffered, when looking at the case of Bulgaria and North Macedonia. The danger is that even if the membership criteria are met, the possibility of a countries’ accession being blocked is real. Moreover, the politicization between the EU and WB relations can be seen through the EU’s hesitation to publicly rebuke the countries’ democracy and rule of law problems. How will the EU move forward in returning the faith of the accession process to the citizens of the WB countries? Will the creation of the common regional market be successful? These are the questions the EU and WB countries will have to answer in the coming years.

3 December 2020 – Social media have exponentially increased opportunities for free expression, but they have also opened up new challenges. They enabled easier communication locally and globally, connected users and enabled them to promote and achieve common goals. On the other hand, social media have opened up space for the spread of hate speech and misinformation. Creating and implementing appropriate policies to address these challenges has become a topic of transnational importance.

These were some of the topics discussed at the event “Freedom of expression on the Internet –  Common Challenge for the EU and North Macedonia” which took place on December 10 through the ZOOM platform and at Europe House, organized by the European Policy Institute – Skopje. With this event, EPI also celebrated the International Human Rights Day.

Watch the video here.

The speakers on the panel discussion were Alexandar Melamed – Delegation of the European Union to North Macedonia, Mladen Chadikovski – Association of Journalists of Macedonia, Meelika Hirmo – SALTO Participation & Information Resource Center from Estonia and Elida Zylbeari –  Metamorphozis Foundation, as well as the students Darko Berovski and Jehona Palloshi. The discussion was moderated by EPIs Project Assistant, Ardita Vejseli.

The students Darko Berovski and Jehona Palloshi presented the negative and positive sides of the Internet, as conclusions from the online discussions with young people aged 18 to 24, which EPI organized and held on December 3, 2020.

Berovski presented the positive aspects of the Internet, such as access to a large amount of information that people did not know before; learning new languages; easier communication with other people around the world, something that would be impossible without the Internet; allowing small businesses to advertise their work and make it easier to get information from important events. Palloshi, on the other hand, presented the negative aspects of the Internet such as Internet addiction and the negative impact on mental health; comparing people with others which negatively affects their self-perception; misuse of personal data in various ways, spreading hate speech, virtual violence and abuse of freedom of expression; spreading political propaganda; reduced restrictions on what is posted online.

Alexandar Melamed from the Delegation of the European Union in North Macedonia pointed out that in all debates in the EU on the measures to be taken to address the problems, there was a debate on how not to violate freedom of expression through the regulation. The EU’s incentive is increasingly focused on promoting self-regulation rather than further legal regulation. He also presented the efforts and activities the EU has undertaken over the years, such as the launch of the EU Internet Forum in 2015 which provides a voluntary framework for the industry to cooperate in deleting terrorist content; signing of the Code of Conduct in 2016 with the 4 largest companies (Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube) used to delete illegal content on the Internet which violates the laws of the EU or member states;  the 2018 European Commission recommendation to help IT companies develop tools to address the challenges of freedom of expression in particular, and the EU Action Plan against disinformation, which includes a platform for a rapid alert system.

“When it comes to freedom of expression, in order to protect it as a human right, we need a comprehensive approach, we need all of us, civil society, the authorities, businesses and the IT industry to raise awareness and do its part to protect this right, as a universal right.

Mladen Chadikovski, from the Association of Journalists of Macedonia, stated that in order to raise the quality of journalism, we should work on mechanisms for self-regulation and thus control fake news on the Internet. In our country, online media are not regulated by a special law, but all their work related to the information narrative they produce is regulated by other laws, such as the Copyright Law and other laws that regulate hate speech. He also presented the database of internet portals, Promedia.mk, which meet certain standards and criteria for the way they report and work. The database is a register of online media with over 130 professional Internet sites.

“If the laws are properly applied, we will have no problem functioning with this additional self-regulation that we are promoting.”

Elida Zylbeari, from the Metamorphosis Foundation, highlighted some of the projects that this organization implements in order to reduce fake news, increase media education and critical thinking of citizens, such as CriThink and Vistinomer and noted that this “war” continues to this day because, according to her, fake news and hate speech are a threat to human rights.  Especially in times of crisis such as the coronavirus crisis, fake news that have no credible sources and are written by dubious authors who do not follow the journalistic code of ethics are dangerous to society. She also explained the methodology used to verify announcements and news. The so-called fact-checkers examine in detail from the logic of the text, the author, whether and which sources are used to the images used.

“Journalists should adhere to the principles of journalism because without those principles one cannot be a good journalist. We need to verify the facts, and emphasize the bad work of the institutions, because our weapon as journalists, but also of the citizens, is to be vocal about our rights.”

Mеelika Hirmo, from the SALTO Participation & Information Resource Center in Estonia, said that non-formal education and activism were paralleled by freedom of the media, freedom of expression and education. The key is balance and a combination of tools – understanding the reality and situation of the country because if a measure, law or regulation worked in one country, this does not mean that it will work in another country without knowing the problem and the appropriate answer. In the European context, formal and non-formal education has been shown to play a major role, but attention should also be paid to educators and teachers themselves, not just citizens and young people. Educators and teachers need to be educated to what the new issues are, what the new platforms are, and they need to know the issues well enough to contribute appropriately to greater media literacy.

“The main question is how to regulate, what to regulate and why to regulate. Because when we want to promote content that is verified, unbiased and confirmed,  Facebook rejects this content, but at the same time you can see false information still spreading around. It is a challenge when countries or social media tehmselves start to “ban” content that is balanced and does not promote hate speech. They just use key words, automatized it and this can create more problems than it solves them”

The panelists also referred to freedom of expression as a human right. It was emphasized that media and information literacy are important in a democratic society, they do not only include knowledge, but also active participation, creating content that will make an important change in society, and young people play a key role here through those skills, the realization of their right and their active participation in civil society can contribute to the development of democracy. Furthermore, more attention should be paid to the extent that states and governments regulate this area so that no further and unnecessarily restrictions can be made to free speech, especially for journalists.

The event was organized as part of the project “Make Future Together: EU and Western Balkans from  Youth Perspective”, conducted by 6 think tanks from the Western Balkans (Think for Europe Network – TEN), together with the Institute for International Affairs from Italy, The Bronislaw Geremek Foundation from Poland and the European Policy Centre (EPC) from Belgium. The project is funded by the European Commission, through the Europe for Citizens program.

17 November 2020 – As a part of the project Make Future Together: EU and the Western Balkans from the Youth Perspective, European Policy Centre (CEP) organised nation-wide youth consultations in order to find out the youth’s perspective on internet freedoms and regulations of online content. Throughout the two hours, the youth gave their opinions and provided significant input based on their personal experiences and attitudes.

Consultations brought together 12 motivated youth representatives, aged between 16 and 24 from different cities and municipalities in Serbia. In order to facilitate these consultations, Zoom platform was used, which allowed for the connection of this diverse group and their exchange of ideas.

Discussion began in a group setting where the participants reflected on their use of the internet and social networks. Throughout the discussion, the youth concluded that they spend majority of their time with their phone in their hands. Moreover, they realised that during the COVID-19 pandemic, they relied upon technology and the internet and their social media profiles in order to function, keep in contact with their peers and family, but also to gather important information. Therefore, three best and most important aspects when it comes to navigating the online world is the availability of information, ability to use the platforms for activism and to share one’s opinion with others. On the other hand, alongside with these positives, youth indicated the existence of several negative aspects of the internet – fake news and disinformation, data privacy, the possibility of addiction and the worrying effects on mental health.

Second part of discussion focused on finding ways and mechanisms in which these negative aspects can be mitigated and who would be entrusted with such a serious task. Results and conclusions indicated that the youth does not trust national-level institutions due to a fear that someone’s interests will be represented, rather than remaining objective and neutral. On the other hand, the participants recognized the importance of self-regulation of big social network platforms such as Facebook and Twitter with their fact-checking mechanisms. Additionally, they acknowledged the importance of working on our own media literacy skills in order to mitigate the above mentioned issues. Participants recommended including civil society organizations in the system of formal and informal education and approaching the issue on a holistic level where everyone could be included – from marginalized groups, parents, states to multilateral organizations such as the European Union. One of the conclusions also indicated that a creation of an independent regulatory body for the freedom of expression on the internet could somewhat contribute to the resolution of the issues.

Irina Radosavljević, one of the participants from the consultations, earned an opportunity to present these findings obtained during the consultations at a panel filled with experts in the field. She also got the opportunity to ask important questions posed by her peers – does anyone have the power to control individual expression online and who would that be.