Smoke and Mirrors: Al Jazeera and Euroscepticism in the Balkans

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/8/31/the-danger-of-pro-eu-euroscepticism-in-the-western-balkans

Parties and politicians formerly aligned with Eurosceptic elements have accumulated a great deal of power and now stand near the pinnacle of the EU hierarchy. They're not there yet and they remain divided but were these Right-wing nationalist groups to come together - Brussels could be theirs.

As such, the whole posture toward the EU has shifted and become ambiguous. Suddenly the EU might not be so bad - if the Right-wing parties could control it. Maybe an EU under their leadership would be better than an EU dismantled - or so the reasoning goes.

This proves tricky in the Balkans - the last geographic bloc in Europe where one finds several nations outside the EU, and divided over the question of membership. The once clear lines of Right-wing nationalist opposition and Centre and Centre-Left desires to join the prosperous and liberal Western bloc are no longer so clear.

In this case the author of the article (Katerina Kolozova) is suggesting that preparatory initiatives are being effectively milked by nationalist leaders as a means to engage in endless delay when it comes to the question of EU membership.

While the author seemingly scoffs at the notion of the EU fomenting nationalist strife, the reality is that there is some truth to this - especially in a place like the Balkans were many questions regarding borders remain disputed.

The EU represents liberal democracy on the one hand but for small nations it can indeed take a kind of anti-democratic turn as membership involves a loss of autonomy. Poorer nations will benefit from subsidies but they always come with strings attached in the form of conditions like budgetary and other economic requirements which will affect and in some cases harm local economies and customs. This can lead to a destruction of rural patterns of life and become the source of great bitterness.

Orban hopes to channel this anger and frustration as well as the nationalist and anti-liberal tendencies in these countries. Their votes and addition to the European Parliament will strengthen his hand. It's clear that Orban (who at one time would have been viewed as a Eurosceptic and a potential figure to lead Hungary out of the EU) is now vying for control of the bloc. The Balkans will help him.

Mainstream EU strategists are still looking at the big picture and a geopolitical agenda that harks back to the 1990's. They want to bring these nations into the Western liberal order and hope that in doing so the prosperity and social freedoms they experience will tamp down any remaining nationalism and/or tendencies to look back (to history) or toward the likes of Moscow.

Of course pro-EU elements can always whip out the Moscow card and blame any doubts or criticisms of the EU on Putin and so-called Putinism. This is disingenuous to say the least as EU tensions and doubts were already well established years before Putin became the pariah of Europe. I found it interesting that the author evoked the spectre of non-alignment, the third-way scenario that the power blocs hate and despise - and yet one that has the potential to be very effective for such nations. It seems to be the route Ankara under Erdogan's AKP has taken - at least for the present. As far as the stability promised with the EU - in reality it is the expansion of the EU (and especially NATO) that has led to the current conflict in Ukraine. So it depends on what lens you employ when viewing these questions.

Indeed how often have I pointed out that NATO's Balkan projects (and wars) of the 1990's were but the opening chapter in a struggle that would spread to Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. And so I would argue the author of the article has it completely backwards.

Al Jazeera adds a disclaimer to the editorial and yet the fact that they published it touches once more on the shift that took place in the network after the 2013-2016 period. The Al Jazeera America channel represented a new approach in which the network cozied up to the Western Establishment - on many critical points. The AJ America channel failed and was shut down in 2016 but by then Al Jazeera had earned considerable status and in 2015 a seat in the White House Press corps.

At that point all English language programming reverted to the far superior Doha-based Al Jazeera English channel and yet the consequences of the shift remained. It's not the same channel it was decade and more ago.

https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/02/al-jazeera-english-vs-russia-today

This 2016 piece from PRX's The World more or less reinforces this point - juxtaposing Al Jazeera English and Russia Today (RT). The point of the article is to puff Al Jazeera and trash RT. As expected they choose a couple of anomalous incidents to put the spotlight on.

RT is biased to be sure but no less a propaganda outfit that the US-sponsored Voice of America or Radio Free Europe. For years RFE was directly associated with and gave voice to fascists and Nazi allies from the World War II era. In other words there's a lot of dishonesty and hypocrisy here.

The academic who authored the editorial on the EU is clearly a Western-oriented liberal. Kolozova's views and comments offer some insight regardless of whether or not I agree with them. The fact that they're published on Al Jazeera - that's a story in itself and reveals a great deal about the direction the network has moved.

Al Jazeera retains a strong focus on Middle Eastern politics and is fairly hostile to Israel - particularly under Likud. But from the standpoint of the Western Establishment, when it comes to China, Russia, and questions surrounding the EU - the network has become more an ally than antagonist.