There is another potential advantage for Albania. If the EU decides to limit the use of the veto and strengthen the principle of not linking European policies to “unrelated” issues, then a political precedent will be set against using different issues to block a common process.
The debate launched by 11 European Union member states on limiting the veto in foreign policy has suddenly emerged as an institutional battle between EU capitals. But for Albania and other candidate countries, it could have much broader consequences: it affects the very way political power functions within the Union and, consequently, the space a member state has to influence the enlargement process.
Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are calling for the EU to consider moving from unanimity to qualified majority in foreign policy. Their argument is simple: a Union of 27 countries cannot be effective if a single government can block a joint decision. But for Albania the question is different: if the EU starts to limit the use of the veto in such a strategic area, could the political climate in which enlargement takes place also change? The answer is yes, but indirectly.
ALBANIA IS WELL AWARE OF THE PROBLEM OF “A STATE THAT SAYS NO”
The history of Albanian integration has shown that the enlargement process is not just a technical exercise of completing chapters and reforms. It is also a deeply political process. Albania can adopt reforms, harmonize legislation and meet conditions set by the European Commission, but decision-making on important steps in the process remains dependent on the political will of the member states. This is one of the reasons why Albania’s European path has been characterized several times by delays that have not necessarily been proportional to the pace of reforms carried out in Tirana.
The most well-known case is that of the years when Bulgaria and then France played important roles in the political climate of decision-making for enlargement, while Albania was also faced with demands and conditions that went beyond a strictly technical reading of progress. This shows an important reality: in the EU, formal criteria are necessary, but they are not always sufficient.
IF THE VETO IS WEAKENED, THE BALANCE BETWEEN “MERIT” AND NATIONAL INTERESTS CHANGES.
One of Albania’s main arguments in the integration process has been that enlargement should be a merit-based process. This message was recently conveyed by Foreign Minister Ferit Hoxha at the Bled Strategic Forum, emphasizing that enlargement should remain a “merit-based” process, while Albania seeks to be seen not only as a beneficiary of the European project, but as a contributor to the security, competitiveness and strength of the Union. If the EU moves towards a system where foreign policy decisions cannot be easily blocked by a single capital, this philosophy could also be indirectly strengthened in the enlargement process. A member state will find it more difficult to use its political power to block a European process for reasons that are only partially related to the membership criteria. This does not mean that the veto will disappear from enlargement.
But it would create a new political culture in Brussels: less “I block, so we negotiate” and more “we negotiate, then we decide”. For a candidate country like Albania, this change would be important. However, a fundamental distinction must be made. The current debate of the 11 countries is mainly related to the EU’s foreign and security policy, not directly to enlargement. It would therefore be wrong to say that the proposed reform will automatically make Albania’s accession easier. The enlargement process has its own mechanisms and requires political agreements of the member states at several stages.
However, if the new decision-making philosophy takes hold, it could affect how European capitals view the use of the veto in general. And that is the strategic dimension.
ALBANIA CAN BENEFIT FROM AN EU THAT CONSIDERS ENLARGEMENT AS A GEOPOLITICAL INTEREST
There is another element that is perhaps even more important. The debate on lifting the veto comes at a time when enlargement is no longer treated as just a technical neighbourhood policy. It is increasingly seen as a geopolitical instrument. The war in Ukraine, tensions with Russia, uncertainty in the Western Balkans and global competition have changed the way some EU countries view enlargement. In this logic, Albania and the Western Balkans are not simply countries waiting to meet the standards to join the Union. They are part of a strategic space that the EU wants to keep within its political, economic and security orbit. This is why Feri Hoxha’s statement in Bled has political significance. When Tirana says that membership is both “aspiration and offer”, it is trying to change the narrative: Albania is not just looking to take from the EU, but claims that it can add value to the Union. In a Europe more focused on security and geopolitical power, this argument may become increasingly important.
BUT ALBANIA SHOULD NOT RELY ON WEAKENING THE VETO
If Albania interprets the possible EU reform as an opportunity to avoid its own political and institutional problems, it would make a strategic mistake. On the contrary, an EU that seeks to decide more quickly may become more demanding, not less demanding. If the Union’s core countries want to create a structure more capable of operating in a dangerous international environment, they will need new members that offer credible institutions, the rule of law, a functional administration, and political stability. So, the decision-making reform does not replace the Albanian reform. On the contrary, it may make it more important.
THE OLD PROBLEM: BILATERAL CONDITIONS
There is another potential advantage for Albania. If the EU decides to limit the use of the veto and strengthen the principle of not linking European policies to “unrelated” issues, then a political precedent will be set against using different issues to block a common process. This is particularly important for the Western Balkans. The enlargement process has shown that bilateral relations, historical disputes and national interests can permeate the European process. Albania has had cases where dynamics with individual EU states have influenced the pace of its process. An EU that institutionally and politically strongly opposes this practice would be more predictable for Tirana.
BUT THERE IS ALSO AN OPPOSITE SCENARIO
It should not be ruled out that the weakening of the veto in foreign policy will create a new problem for small and candidate countries. Smaller countries argue that the veto is one of the few instruments that allows them to defend their interests in the face of the power of Germany, France, Italy or Spain. If the qualified majority becomes the norm, the political weight of the larger countries increases. For Albania, this has two sides. On the one hand, it may lose the opportunity for a small country, traditionally supportive of enlargement, to use its political weight to defend the interests of the Western Balkans. On the other hand, Albania may gain if the larger countries are the ones who see enlargement as a strategic interest.
So, for Tirana, the issue is not simply “veto or qualified majority?” The real question is: Who will be the political coalition that determines the future of enlargement?
ALBANIA MUST BUILD COALITIONS, NOT WAIT FOR A “YES” FROM BRUSSELS
If this debate continues, Albanian diplomacy should learn a clear lesson. In the future EU, success will not be determined solely by the ability to convince the European Commission that Albania has met a criterion. It will also be determined by the ability to create political coalitions among member states. This means that Tirana should invest more in relations with Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Warsaw, the Nordic countries and the capitals of Central Europe. If European foreign policy is moving towards a model where countries seek to avoid individual deadlocks, Albania should become part of the coalitions that set the agenda, not simply the object of their decisions.