For some of Bulgaria’s neighbours in South Eastern Europe, 2006 saw steps, faltering or firm, towards European integration. For others, the year brought little or no real change for the better.

Montenegro, after a referendum in May 2006, became on June 3 Europe’s youngest country and the world’s newest sovereign state. A total of 419 240 votes were cast, representing 86.5 per cent of the total electorate. About 55.5 per cent voted in favour of independence and 44.5 per cent were against. The just more than 45 000 votes more in favour of independence narrowly surpassed the 55 per cent threshold needed to validate the referendum under rules set by the European Union. According to the electoral commission, the 55 per cent threshold was passed by only 2300 votes. Serbia, the member-states of the European Union, and Bulgaria, as well as members of the United Nations Security council, all recognised Montenegro’s independence.

Montenegro’s independence declaration signalled the end of what was left of the former Yugoslavia. Serbia did not obstruct the ruling.

Instead it confirmed its own independence. Montenegro began the process of seeking international recognition as well as a seat at international organisations, and on June 28 2006, it became the 192nd member state of the UN. The narrow victory, however, was said to signify a deeply divided nation, with opponents arguing that it would damage economic, family and political ties with Serbia. So the BBC reported on May 22. Serbian politicians, Orthodox church leaders and Montenegrins from the mountainous inland regions bordering Serbia broadly opposed secession. However, ethnic Montenegrins and Albanians from the coastal area largely backed prime minister Milo Djukanovic, and favoured independence.

In a declaration on June 15, the Serbian government said that Montenegrins living in Serbia would be able to get Serbian citizenship, if they wanted it. Montenegrin and Serbian students would also retain their rights.

Meanwhile, at the end of October, Serbians voted in a referendum in favour of a new constitution. Controversially, through the referendum Serbia reaffirmed its absolute sovereignty over Kosovo, which while legally still a part of Serbia was under UN administration pending finalisation of its status.

Moreover, the Contact Group of six major powers guiding Balkan diplomacy said in a meeting in Vienna that they would postpone declaring independence for Kosovo. This was as a result of Serbia’s announcement of an early election for January 21 2007, in which the extreme nationalist Radical party is expected to emerge as the strongest. The Contact Group – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Russia – had originally promised Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority a decision by the end of 2006. Diplomats said that the major powers were sympathetic to Albanians’ demand for independence. However, they wanted to avoid boosting support for the ultra-nationalist Radical Party by taking steps towards Kosovo’s independence before the elections.

Simultaneously in Vienna, the UN envoy for Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, and diplomats from the US, Europe and Russia also said they would wait until after the Serbian ballot to resolve Kosovo’s status, the Guardian reported.

In the referendum, 51 per cent voted for the constitution. Serbian prime minister Voislav Koshtunica said that the nation had demonstrated its will to keep Kosovo. In a statement on October 30 on Serbian National Television, Koshtunica said that the referendum was a “historical moment in which Serbia clearly proves that it wants to defend its unity and that Kosovo is an inseparable part of Serbia”. Koshtunica had strong words for those who wanted independence for Kosovo. “Such a step will not remain without consequences,” he said, according to a Reuters report. He said that recognising Kosovo as an independent country would directly affect Serbia’s relations with the countries that did so. Thus, at this stage Kosovo’s future as an independent country grew even more uncertain.

Similarly uncertain was the question of Turkey’s future as an EU member. After talks on EU accession were officially opened in 2005, in December 2006 Brussels decided to partially suspend them. This came after a much discussed report on Turkey’s progress towards joining the EU. Issued on November 8, the European Commission (EC) report heavily criticised Turkey on a number of points.

There was major criticism of Turkey’s refusal to amend the controversial Article 301 of the penal code, which refers to freedom of expression in the country. Moreover, Brussels raised serious concerns about allegations of torture, limitations to freedom of religion, women’s and trade union rights, civilian control over the military, and the rights and freedoms of the Kurdish population. The most widely discussed “black point”, however, was given to Turkey’s absolute rejection to open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot traffic.

This indeed was the clause which triggered Brussels’s move to recommend on November 29 that eight of Ankara’s 35 negotiating chapters should be suspended. To punish Turkey for its stubbornness about not extending its customs union to all EU countries, including Cyprus, European Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn announced a number of other key measures.

Firstly, the EC put a less serious block on every other chapter – with the exception of education, which has been agreed – by preventing them from being closed. And secondly, the EC said that it would hold open the possibility of negotiations in the interim by calling for four chapters to be opened. These cover uncontroversial areas such as industry and enterprise.

The EC’s announcement stirred fury in Turkey’s capital. Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the move as unacceptable. But Rehn, a strong supporter of a Turkey EU membership, said that talks would continue.

Quoted by the Guardian on November 29, Rehn declared that Turkey could avoid a crisis by scoring a “golden goal” on the Cyprus issue. “We confirm these negotiations must continue, although at slower pace. There will be no train crash. There is a slowing down because of work further down the tracks. However, the train continues to move,” he said.

The EC said no area of negotiation should be declared complete until the Cyprus situation is resolved. However, Turkey says it will not do so until the EU eases its embargo on Turkish-controlled northern Cyprus. Thus, getting full negotiation talks back on track currently seem remote. So does EU membership for the South European/Asian country.

2006 was a big but not very promising year also for Macedonians. On July 5 Macedonia held its fourth parliamentary elections since its independence from the former Yugoslavia in 1991. The winner – the centre-right Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity – received 32.5 per cent of the votes, while 23.1 went to the centre-left Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, and 12.1 to the Democratic Union for Integration.

Even though the actual election day went off without any major irregularities, the overall election campaign was not without problems.

It was marked by serious cross-political confrontations sometimes became violent. Most of the problems emanated from the two major ethnic Albanian parties, the Democratic Union for Integration and the Democratic Party of Albanians. Representatives of the EU and NATO had warned Macedonia prior to the elections that should irregularities occur, the country risked delays in joining the two organisations. The problematic election campaign did no good to Macedonia’s international reputation. Thus, although Macedonia was granted EU candidate status in December 2005, only time will tell the effect of the 2006 elections.