Romania, rule of law, anti-corruption, good governance, European Union

Policy Recommendations

  1. Do not trade long-term sustainability (accountability, due democratic process, stakeholder negotiation) for short-term efficiency. Yet, short-term results and investment in drivers of change are necessary to build up the credibility of the process. Striking the golden mean is painstaking, but rewarding.
  2. Hold out credible reward for performance (EU accession) and build a rule of law constituency (invest in independent media, civil society organisations, public communication). Empower them to carry the flag and be domestic agents of change. Beware of window-dressing reformers using the accession process for their own ends.
  3. Treat rule of law, anti-corruption and good governance as cross-cutting issues to be incorporated and monitored in every chapter of negotiation and partnership with the EU; ensure stakeholder participation up and down the decision-making process; maintain focus on values, not just ticking boxes.

The rule of law in Montenegro between deep polarisation and an unstable majority – how to get back on track?

Policy Recommendations

  1. The government should develop precise roadmaps in the EU accession talks and a clear framework for strengthening the rule of law. The measures should include better defined indicators and activities while insisting on more specific tasks on an annual basis within the interim benchmarks to facilitate both performance assessment and monitoring of progress. A new model of reporting based on a simplified form, which would include an overview of key challenges in meeting the benchmarks and thus strengthening the rule of law, would be advisable as well.
  2. The new parliamentary majority and all parties in the parliament should strive to remove political influence from the judiciary and find solutions that will enable the strengthening of institutions and ensuring their impartiality. As the EU insists on a broad consensus on these issues, and society is in a state of deep polarisation, a kind of mediation between the two blocs, the majority and the opposition, is needed. In this way, the selection of the best candidates in the judiciary, especially where envisaged membership of the academy (civil society), which will not be close to any party, and thus impartial law enforcement will be ensured and politicisation avoided.
  3. The government should fully open the reforms to the public to allow public scrutiny and impartial evaluation.

Lessons learned from the justice reform in Albania

Policy Recommendations

  1. The political will of the domestic political elites – or the lack of it – should be taken into account when initiating such deep reform(s) because it is a precondition for an efficient implementation of the required changes and results.
  2. The good governance features should apply to the newly established judicial institutions and structures. Their implementation is crucial in determining the outputs and the long-term impact of the reform.
  3. The citizens, who are the main beneficiaries of the reform, should be involved throughout the whole process from the design of the reform to its implementation and operation. Thus, there is a need to prepare information in a way that makes it easier for citizens to understand and to create external mechanisms such as involving representatives of civil society, academia or bar associations to monitor the strategic action plans of the new justice institutions.

Moldova: It’s not an East vs. West competition, but good vs. bad governance

The double victory by Maia Sandu and the pro-European and pro-reform Party of Action and Solidarity was the easiest part of the quest to reform the Republic of Moldova. A ”gangrene” of corruption has long been affecting Chișinău and there will be hardened resistance against any attempt to alter the system. This resistance will be twofold: from within the system and from external actors which are interested in maintaining the country in a grey area.

In July 2021, the Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS), led until recently by country president Maia Sandu, won an unexpected comfortable majority in the Moldovan Parliament. With a strong anti-corruption message, the party got 52.8% of total votes, surpassing the pro-Russian Bloc of Communists and Socialists (BECS), which came in second, with only 27.1%, and the SOR Party, led by fugitive oligarch Ilan Shor, which got 5.7% of the votes. This score gave PAS 63 mandates out of the total of 101 in the new Parliament.

The electoral campaign was fought over two main opposing messages. Once again, BECS proved that they failed to understand why Igor Dodon lost the recent presidential elections by a wide margin[1]. It chose to rely on the same geopolitical messages: „East v. West” and an anti-EU rhetoric, promoting anti-Western values and disseminating slogans of the type “we will not sell our country”. As a result, BECS failed to persuade voters, even in the Russia-dominated northern part of the country. Corruption scandals and incompetence in governing the country took their toll on the party’s ability to mobilise voters.

PAS ignored geopolitics entirely and focused its campaign on anticorruption and good governance.

PAS, on the other hand, ignored geopolitics entirely and focused its campaign on anticorruption and good governance. This proved convincing for a large part of the population, including in Russian speaking counties. Boosted by Maia Sandu’s presidential victory and with an excellent campaign at grassroots level, PAS won more votes than it had expected. From the start, organising snap elections was in itself an unexpected victory for Maia Sandu, since no party – with the exception of PAS – was interested in this sort of outcome. The new government, led by Natalia Gavriliță, former Minister of Finance in Maia Sandu’s Cabinet in 2019, has been sworn in in early August.

What now?

The decisive victory comes with very high hopes and expectations. The citizens voted in favour of an anticorruption agenda and against the oligarchic system. And this is what they expect: quick results in the fight against corruption and better economic perspectives. Resistance to reform is, however, extremely high in a country riddled with corruption and organised crime. The results of the elections only give a first signal that power may no longer remain in the hands of a small group of oligarchs.

There are multiple challenges that the pro-reformist movement led by Maia Sandu will have to overcome. Reforming a corrupt system requires time, political will and well-trained human resources. Finding reformists within the system, in the public administration, secret services or the judiciary, willing to support the reform agenda, may be particularly difficult in a country affected by systemic corruption and mass migration. Delivering fast results – as expected by the citizens – may thus prove difficult.

The pattern we witnessed during the election campaign – oligarchs with diverging positions creating ad-hoc alliances against Maia Sandu and her party – will increase exponentially when the new government attempts to put a stop to corruption schemes. Oligarchs continue to control key institutions in the Republic of Moldova. Unsurprisingly, Maia Sandu’s first promise was to reform the judiciary. She pointed out clearly in a recent interview for EuroNews: “This is about eliminating the corrupt judges and the corrupt prosecutors from the system”.

The media is also far from being independent and most TV stations and outlets are still controlled by oligarchs. This gives them the opportunity to undermine the reforms that will be initiated by the new government, flood the public space with fake news and conspiracy theories and attempt to control public narratives. In a recent analysis by the Romanian Center for European Policies (CRPE) and the Foreign Policy Association (APE), focused on what Romania should do to support the pro-reform agenda in Chișinău, one of the key recommendations was to support strategic communication and independent media through technical and financial assistance. This would give a boost to the new government to better communicate their agenda to the citizens. 

The pattern we witnessed during the election campaign – oligarchs with diverging positions creating ad-hoc alliances against Maia Sandu and her party – will increase exponentially when the new government attempts to put a stop to corruption schemes.

External threats are equally dangerous. Through local proxies, the Russian Federation controls numerous political actors, media outlets or representatives of the Orthodox Church. This provides it with important public channels to disseminate their agenda and mix in pro-Kremlin messages and anti-EU ones. Eroding public support for the European Union through targeted messaging will be the main purpose of the Kremlin over the next few years.

External support for the reform agenda

Nevertheless, Maia Sandu and her party have some key allies in their task to reform the corrupt system in Chișinău – most importantly, the citizens who voted overwhelmingly in favour of their anti-corruption agenda. This has shown, once more, that slogans cannot replace actions and public trust in politicians can be earned only if competence and integrity are key characteristics of the political leaders. In the long run, the new government in Chișinău will also enjoy the support of Moldova’s key Western partners: The European Union, the United States and Romania.

Maia Sandu’s victory in November 2020 brought immediate improvement to the relationship between Chișinău and Brussels. Key support programmes were restarted, and the Union promised a large post COVID-19 recovery package for Chișinău, worth EUR 600 million. This recovery plan entails macro-financial assistance and technical support in exchange for progress on the reform agenda.

Chișinău will need both financial and technical assistance to implement reforms. Moldova, Europe’s poorest country and one heavily affected by mass migration, has been in a grey area for decades and in deadlock between Moscow and Brussels. The “pro-European” governments that led Chișinău in the past were by no means reformist. This reality consistently affected the relationship between the two capitals and derailed Moldova’s EU course.

For the first time, Chișinău has reformists both at the level of the Presidency and the Parliament. This gives Moldova a chance to speak with one voice with its key partners and donors.

It is up to the future government to deliver reforms and attract new funding to support key investments that would boost the economic perspectives of the country.

What role for Romania                                                     

Romania is Moldova’s key commercial partner and main donor and it provided the most substantial support for Chișinău during the COVID-19 pandemic. Romania, however, also supported extensively the governments of fugitive oligarch Plahotniuc and it ignored Maia Sandu’s reform agenda until quite recently. Romania bet on Plahotniuc, not Maia Sandu – a particularly risky choice, since the coalitions backed by Plahotniuc were very unpopular.

A window of opportunity has arisen once more to push for real change in Moldova. Romania must rise to the occasion, if it truly supports a pro-reform agenda in Chișinău. Support by Bucharest must continue and even be accelerated with financial and non-financial assistance, but only in exchange for the implementation of reforms.

An analysis carried out by CRPE and APE underlines 9 short term priorities that should be discussed immediately after the new government in Chișinău is sworn in: a new financial agreement to replace the 100 million EUR agreement signed 10 years ago, of which 60 million EUR remain unspent, a development plan for Moldova correlated with the new financial package from the EU, support for finalising key infrastructure and energy projects or support programmes for independent media and civil society (Romania recently announced a financial package for the civil society and media).

Romania should step up its game and support Moldova when it needs it most, this time, supporting individuals who deliver real, tangible results in advancing Chișinău’s European path. The strategic partnership between the two countries must be renewed and support for key strategic projects must be prioritised.

It will not be easy

Maia Sandu won landslide victories last year: winning the presidential elections, forcing snap elections against all odds and, most recently, the historic win by PAS in the parliamentary elections. This shows that power is not solely in the hands of a few oligarchs, but the difficult task is yet to come.

Delivering reforms, sometimes unpopular ones, will come at a cost and will meet with strong resistance. It is unclear if PAS can undertake reforms concerning all major issues at the same time – it should probably prioritise them. PAS is a young party, well-meaning, but without experience in managing unreformed and very corrupt public systems. Results may be delayed, while citizens expect them extremely fast. Any delays may erode the party’s popularity.

Slogans cannot replace actions and public trust in politicians can be earned only if competence and integrity are key characteristics of the political leaders.

The new government and the new pro-reform majority will need all possible support from Moldova’s Western partners. Anti-Western and anti-reform actors, both within and from outside the country, will surely strive to undermine the government and, indirectly, to affect trust in the EU and in Western values. This political majority is, however, Moldova’s best chance to consolidate its democracy and its course towards EU integration, including the possibility over the medium term to become a potential candidate and afterwards a candidate country for EU membership.

[1] In November 2020, Maia Sandu won the 2nd round of presidential elections by a substantial margin, with more than 57% of votes, surpassing Igor Dodon.

Murder, Blackmail and Corruption: Why CEE needs the Magnitsky Act

What action can the CEE countries take against the “bad guys?” How to send out a clear message that political corruption, blackmail, organ trafficking, rape and other crimes have no place in our countries? And how can we protect ourselves from the worst criminals of the world?

The answer has three words: the Magnitsky Law. An unprecedented global initiative to pass legislation that would allow national governments to impose personal sanctions on human rights violators resembles a thriller movie more than anything.

Who was Sergey Magnitsky, the man whose name probably makes Vladimir Putin grind his teeth in anger? Why is there an undeclared hybrid war raging around this piece of legislation? And how can passing the legislation help the CEE region? 

The story of Sergey Magnitsky – an auditor who changed the world

Eleven years ago, in November 2009, Sergey Magnitsky died in a Russian prison. The reason was neither old age, nor an unfortunate deadly disease. He was tortured, denied medical care, eventually dying of a gall bladder infection. Until the very last moment, he did not stop believing in justice and the positive power of rule of law. Each week, he submitted lengthy official complaints about the state of his health and the way he was treated, requesting contact with his family and proper medical care. During 358 days in detention, he wrote over 400 complaints and petitions seeking justice.

His name is often mentioned together with Anna Politkovskaya and Boris Nemtsov, as a straightforward example of  yet another Russian who paid with his own life for fierce criticism of the Russian political regime. Yet Sergey Magnitsky was never a member of the Russian opposition. He was a lawyer and accountant, working for British billionaire businessman Bill Browder and his hedge fund Hermitage Capital Management, which was until 2004 the biggest foreign investor in Russia. Before his arrest, Magnitsky was investigating a 230 million dollar web of financial fraud, allegedly involving Russian government figures misappropriating funds related to companies which were confiscated from Browder by a criminal group with close ties to Kremlin representatives. His investigations were completely apolitical, purely business-motivated.

Yet in November 2008 three representatives from the Russian Interior Ministry arrested Magnitsky. Ironically, the Interior Ministry officials who arrested him worked for the same officer he testified against. A year later, Magnitsky died in prison. His death has become a symbol of the fight against corruption and the oppression of human rights all over the world. Magnitsky was a tax lawyer and auditor who changed the world, and one who may yet change it even more.

Putin’s Biggest Enemy and International Crusade for Passing the Magnitsky Act

Magnitsky’s death set in motion a spiral of events no one could have anticipated. However, if there was ever a man who could make the impossible possible, Magnitsky’s boss – Bill Browder – was a likely candidate. This billionaire with influential connections at the highest levels of global politics turned almost overnight from one of the biggest advocates of appeasement with the Russian regime and the biggest foreign investor in Russia into, as some call him, Putin’s number one enemy.

His motivation was quite straightforward: there were no legislative tools to bring criminals responsible for Magnitsky’s death to justice. So he decided to persuade the British and the American government to change the legal gamefield. Simply, this law imposes visa bans and asset freezes on individual human rights abusers — particularly those who played a role in Magnitsky’s false arrest, torture and death. However, eventually he decided to turn this into a global initiative, with the ultimate goal of persuading governments all over the world to implement their own version of a piece of legislation called the Magnitsky Act. Browder has spent the last nine years fiercely campaigning for the law, and his efforts are bearing fruit.

Explaining the Magnitsky Act

Proponents call it the first solely human rights violations-focused sanction mechanism in the world. The Magnitsky Act, specifically, is a piece of legislation allowing individual countries to impose personalised sanctions on individuals violating human rights anywhere in the world. The measures which can be implemented include the power to freeze bank accounts and other assets, and ban individuals from entering a given country.  As a result, the Magnitsky Act can be perceived as a tool to strengthen the foreign policy toolkit of individual countries. So far, seven countries have implemented the legislation: the US, Canada, the UK, and the three Baltic countries; the newest addition to this group is Kosovo, which passed the Magnitsky Act at the beginning of 2020.

However, it is not always sunny in the realm of human rights protection, and the piece of legislation does have a number of forceful critics too.

One of the strongest arguments against it concerns a fear of unnecessary antagonisation of Russia, while other critics call the legislation superfluous, given that there are already a number of recognised and effective international sanction regimes under the auspices of international organisations such as the European Union and the United Nations.

A final common argument against it is the altogether defeatist retort that “sanctions will not change anything.” Taking each of these in turn however, reveals these concerns as largely misplaced and unfounded.

a) Universal Human Rights Protection Tool

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the law „a purely political and unfriendly act“. And just days after the US act was passed, Russia retaliated through deploying a number of countermeasures, including barring Americans from adopting Russian orphans.

More importantly however, even though the initiative was originally envisaged as a tool against a criminal group with close connections to Russian police and the ministry of finance, responsible for Magnitsky’s death, it has since developed much beyond that. Currently, sanctions apply to 148 individuals and entities suspected of human rights abuses and corruption worldwide.

The US government, for instance, has unilaterally imposed sanctions on 94 individuals and 102 entities from 24 countries, including South Sudan, Uganda, Iraq and Cambodia. Among the individuals listed, we find Myanmar officials responsible for the genocide of Rohingya; doctors and Chinese officials involved in illegal organ trafficking of Uyghurs; and warlords from Africa.

The most prominent individuals listed on the US Magnitsky sanctions list include: Chechen Leader Ramzan Kadyrov; the daughter of late Uzbek President Islam Karimov, Gulnara Karimova, who is involved in political corruption; 17 individuals involved in the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi; and, billionaire Israeli mining magnate Dan Gertler.

b) Targeted Sanctions Mechanism

To address the second counterargument, unlike many international sanctions regimes, the Magnitsky Act, by targeting individuals rather than entire countries or sectors, avoids ‘broad-brush’ sanctions that can disproportionately affect more vulnerable citizens in target states.

This targeted approach also enables the direct sanctioning of malicious individuals and networks, even from countries that are considered to be allies or crucial for broader foreign policy priorities. For instance, the 2017 and 2018 US Global Magnitsky sanctions listed above involved Saudi and Israeli nationals, individuals from countries which are strategic allies of the US and, thus, unlikely to be the subject of broader international financial sanctions.

It is true that the EU already has the power to impose sanctions to promote international peace and security, prevent conflict, fight terrorism and defend democratic principles and human rights. Sanctions can be imposed upon governments of third countries (as is the case of Iran, Burma, Venezuela and others), or non-state entities and individuals. However, this current mechanism seems to be insufficient in ever changing geopolitical environments, and the context of challenges that democracies must face.

The EEAS has already undertaken steps to prepare a new sanction mechanism based upon the same principle as the Magnitsky Act.

It is very likely though that the EU will decide to omit Magnitsky’s name, to avoid creating an impression that the law is primarily anti-Russian. This would go directly against the main idea behind the new EU sanctions regime proposal, which is to enable the EU to impose visa bans or to freeze the assets of individuals from any country in the world who commit serious human rights violations and abuses.

Among the proposed crimes that would trigger such sanctions are: extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary executions, enforced disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. If the law passes, this would send a strong message to those who may commit or be complicit in abuses that the financial centres and currencies of the world’s two largest economies (the EU and the US) are off limits.

Nevertheless, some EU member states still choose (or have chosen to) pass their own versions of the Magnitsky Act. One of the reasons for this might be that this piece of EU legislation is not without its flaws – the proposal only applies to human rights abuses and doesn’t cover corruption like the US version does.

The original version of the Magnitsky Act in the UK does not cover corruption either. The most likely explanation is that they prefer not to rely solely on the EU’s often slow and cumbersome foreign policy processes. Indeed, the Magnitsky Act can actually strengthen the foreign policy even of the member countries of the EU and make it less dependent on it. The Act enables national countries to pass sanctions more quickly and flexibly or pass them against those individuals whom a majority of EU members might not agree about.

c) Projecting Strong Global Message

It is important to maintain that the Act is not simply a symbolic ‘virtue signal’ of international law. Personalised sanctions are of course only one part of the anti-corruption puzzle, but they are an important tool in the arsenal. Such sanctions make it more difficult for criminals to launder illicit gains or continue to do such business in dollars, pounds or euros, the most common global currencies.

They will enable countries to freeze the bank accounts and assets of individuals within their own territories or local banks. They are a successful example of concrete action being taken against the corrupt and the worst human rights abusers, hitting them where it hurts the most – in their pocket. Indeed, as Browder himself states: “These types of individuals keep their money in the West, where property rights and rule of law exists. This led to the idea of the Magnitsky Act, which freezes assets and bans visas of human rights violators.”

Additionally, the inconvenience of being denied entry to the US, Canada, UK or the EU is also a significant penalty, as is the considerable stigma that comes with being sanctioned. Australia, for instance, is currently considering setting a new precedent in its version of the Magnitsky Act, by also including family members of targeted individuals into travel bans, such as children wanting to study at private schools and universities or parents seeking to go to hospitals.

In the words of Elaine Pearson, director of UN Human right watch: “By joining other countries with similar laws, Australia will be sending a strong message to abusive leaders everywhere that there are far-reaching consequences for their actions.”

Implementation in the CEE space

For Magnitsky-type laws to be effective and to have a meaningful impact, it is crucial that more states join in and introduce an equivalent of the Magnitsky Act. Besides the EU, Australia and Sweden, three countries in the CEE region are currently taking steps to pass the law: the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania. What then must these countries do, in order to successfully implement the Magnitsky Act, and ensure that its detractors are proven wrong?

Czech Republic: a one-man crusade

In the Czech Republic, the crusade to get the legislation passed has largely taken the form of a one-man show. The legislation is currently being advocated for by one Member of the Czech Parliament – member of the Czech Pirate Party, vice chairman of the committee on defence and the foreign affairs committee, Jan Lipavský. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, social-democrat Tomáš Petříček, a supporter of the EU version of the Magnitsky Act, seems reluctant to embrace a Czech version of the legislation. This could be, at least in part, a result of political pressure from his own political party and from the Czech president, both of which are known for their closeness to autocratic regimes such as Russia and China.

The Pirate Party is in opposition and therefore has very limited options to get any piece of legislation passed. This means that the chances for passing and implementing the Magnitsky Act by the end of the current political mandate in October 2021 are very slim, to say the least. Similarly to the EU approach, Mr. Lipavský has also decided to omit the name “Magnitsky” in the title and simply name it “The Law on Human Right Protection.” Primarily, because it is against the Czech common practice to name laws after people. Secondly, for reasons akin to the EU’s; to avoid allegations of intentionally targeting only Russian officials.

Slovakia: an outsider agenda

For Slovakia, the Magnitsky Act bears a unique meaning. Until this day, Slovakia is the only country from the CEE region which has a citizen who has been directly targeted by the Magnitsky Act. The US administration has decided to add to its sanction list Marián Kočner, a Slovak oligarch who is directly responsible for the murder of Slovakian investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancee Maria Kušnírová in early 2018. Similarly to the Czech Republic, Slovakia also supported the European version of the Magnitsky Act.

Nevertheless, Slovak political representatives have indicated their interest in the Magnitsky Act before the decision made by Washington. Like in the Czech Republic, the main driving force behind the legislation was a group of MPs led by a member of the Slovak Parliament and leader of the Political Party “Together”, Miroslav Beblavý. One of the promises he made during the political campaign was the promise of passing this legislation if re-elected. During the late February 2020 parliamentary elections, the coalition of liberal parties Together and Progressive Slovakia did not pass the threshold for entering the parliament. With no other political party having the implementation of the Magnitsky Law on its agenda, it is very unlikely that there will be any significant progress on this matter in the foreseeable future.

Romania: a victim of political power play

Out of the three CEE countries in question, the Magnitsky Law proposal got the furthest in Romania, being presented on the floor of the Romanian Senate. The main initiators of this legislation were three members of the Save Romania Union (USR); Adrian Prisnel, Iulian Bulai, and Cristian Ghinea.

Fighting corruption is the most important topic for the third biggest Romanian party and so it made sense for the USR to make this human rights initiative their own. New sanctions were to be made more “flexible” than the older, country-based ones, and were therefore predicted to have a “strong psychological effect” on the abusers. The main punishment was supposed to be the visa ban and asset freeze.

However the proposal was primarily focused on severe human rights abuses. Similarly to the UK and EU Magnitsky Acts, the Romanian proposal did not list corruption as a crime. However, this might come as a surprise for many observers, given that the proposal came from the so-called “anti-corruption” party.

When the three MPs submitted their proposal to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of Romanian Senate in April 2019, they may have expected a positive reaction from fellow MPs. This was partly because, in 2018, 43 Romanian MPs signed a petition urging the government to adopt a ‘Magnitsky Act’, imposing sanctions on human rights abusers. It was also because the draft had been signed as a sign of support by 33 MPs out of 136, most of them from their own faction, but also by three deputies from the ruling Social Democratic Party and two from the National Liberal Party, the second largest party. Thus, there was an indication of broader support. However, the draft was finally declined by the Committee and only members of the USR ended up supporting it.

In the Romanian case, some claim that the Magnitsky Law became a victim of political power play. Indeed, it may well have been viewed by other Romanian political forces as a potential internal political weapon in political battles with the Social Democrat Party and in the ongoing attempt by the USR to take over support from the National Liberal Party, while also reinforcing its position in its tenuous alliance with the PLUS party, another reformist entity led by former European Commissioner and technocrat Prime Minister Dacian Cioloș.

Another possible explanation is that maneuvering against the proposal may also have simply been an attempt to prevent further antagonising Russia, with relations between the two countries at their lowest point in decades and dialogue practically non-existent. However, the USR was not completely discouraged by their loss. In January 2020, the leadership of the USR announced that they would seek to reintroduce a new version of the law.

There has been no progress on this matter ever since. Partially also because according to some, there is a sense that institutions like the DNA (Anti-Corruption Directorate) are strong enough to handle corruption, including transborder.

Also, the state had shown the will in the past to sanction individuals, such as denying Dmitri Rogozin the right to transit Romanian air space. In conclusion, there is very little urgency or impulse to the Magnitsky act and it is very unlikely it will resurface in a foreseeable period of time.

Why it matters

There are also key reasons, specific to the CEE region, for passing this piece of legislation. Primarily, it is about enhancing an international order based on universal values, which is equipped with mechanisms for preventing their extortion.

CEE countries stand to gain from a rules-based order that has powerful enforcement mechanisms, as opposed to a more transactional system, where their negotiating power is likely to be limited. A piece of legislation strengthening their foreign policy in the name of human rights is an epitome of such an order and a logical addition to a national diplomatic toolkit of post-Soviet countries.

At a more profound level, the Magnitsky package, with its both human rights and anti-corruption dimensions, should become part of an expanded arsenal of tools to compete in the 21st century geopolitical arena. Creatively used, it can simultaneously be leveraged for deterrence purposes, but also for lawfare especially against those foreign adversaries that instrumentalise corruption to manoeuvre, exploit and weaponise certain vulnerabilities within the CEE space. The region is particularly prone to malign foreign interference via corruption, clientelism and lack of transparency. The comprehensive Magnitsky legislation could be seen as an important step in enhancing regional resilience to hybrid operations.

CEE: a hybrid target
Recent years have seen frequent hybrid operations intent on meddling in the internal affairs of CEE countries on the part of both Russia and China, clearly indicating that neither of them respects the sovereignty of the CEE region countries. Such influence operations include, but are not limited to, strategic corruption, espionage, blackmail, performed through hacking, as well as other forms of cyber attacks, including the spread of hostile propaganda and disinformation in both the public and virtual space – with a recent spike since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We can recall attempts of espionage in Poland from Chinese-owned Huawei in 2019, the attempted state coup in Montenegro in 2017, and the attempted assassination of Emilian Gebrev in Bulgaria, to name but a few. Or the very recent “Koněv affair” where the decision of the local government of Prague 6 to remove an old statue of Soviet Marshall Koněv from a square in Prague led to a chain of disinformation campaigns, cyber attacks, and the activation of Czech far-left and far-right civil actors.

The nationalisation of EU enlargement. North Macedonia after yet another ‘no!’

By Zoran Nechev and Ivan Nikolovski | Skopje

In February 2018, the European Commission published its communiqué ‘A Credible Enlargement Perspective for and Enhanced EU Engagement with the Western Balkans’. The document offered an incentive to the countries of the region, especially to those that are already in the negotiation process such as Montenegro and Serbia.