Distinguished Attendees,
Esteemed Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The topic of this panel is "The Western Balkan Migrant Route as a New Road towards the West". I have to admit that the title of today's panel surprised me. Does it say a new route? Can we talk about the Balkans as a new route at all? Why do we indeed talk about the Western Balkans?

The Balkans has always been a main corridor connecting Europe with the Middle East and North Africa. For centuries the Roman roads Via Egnatia and Via Militaris have passed through the Balkans, which are known today as Corridor 8 and Corridor 10.

Roman legions from the West have walked along Via Egnatia to conquer the East. The road used by the Roman Empire to militarily conquer the East was the same road that the Christianity from the East used to spiritually conquer the Empire.

The second ancient road, Via Militaris, which was passed by many European conquerors and many conquerors of Europe, passes through the Vardar Valley. Therefore, Bismarck said that "those who control the valley of the River Vardar in Macedonia are the masters of the Balkans".

It seems that decision-makers in Brussels have missed the tutorials in history and geography. It is so soon that they have forgotten that the Balkans is the gate of Europe and that the gate is characterized by multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual diversity? They have become hostages of rhetoric and terminology that is not based on history and geography. How can we otherwise explain the artificial division of the Balkans into Eastern and Western? How is it possible that today we talk about the Balkans as a new route to the West?

The answer lies in the human revolt against geography in the 20th century. Communication and economic corridors were cut by impassable political borders which are increasingly branching, thus separating the open space. As the time passes, the physical boundaries that cut the corridors create mental boundaries and walls. It is on the mental walls of the 20th century that the physical walls are founded today, that sprout throughout Europe as barriers for the migrants. It is walls built of prejudice, xenophobia and fear of diversity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Symbolically, the 21st century began with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Today, there is a new movement of peoples fleeing the failed states in the Middle East and Africa. Refugees have become migrants and illegal migration and the related risks started coming in Europe.

The greatest confirmation that the European Union deserves the Nobel Peace Prize is in the migrants and refugees. They flee to Europe considering it an area of peace. But how Europe treats them?

We hear more often that people talk about cultural suicide of Europe. But if Europe does not share solidarity with the migrants, can we confirm death of morality and ethics in Europe?

We hear statements that multiculturalism in Europe is dead. But is there any alternative? Rather than united in diversity, will Europe be now united against diversity? Instead integration without assimilation, does Europe now prefer integration with assimilation? Has the time come to redefine the concept of integration? Will integration be understood as an ability of the different to live in harmony or we will continue to use integration to make the unalike become like us?

We hear statements that Muslim migrants from the Middle East are a threat to Christian Europe. But has Europe forgotten that Christianity owes precisely to the Middle East? If Apostle Paul had no vision in which the Macedonian called on him to come to Europe, could we talk about Christian Europe today at all? I will remind you of one more thing. Most of the Balkans has several centuries of experience of coexistence with Islam. Does that experience make us less Christians?

We hear statements that, among the migrants, extremists and foreign terrorist fighters are hiding. Paradoxically, one of the main transmitters of radicalism against Europe is the European xenophobia. If Europe opened its doors to the migrants, then it would refute the radicalized individuals. But, if Europe closes its doors to the migrants, then, in the eyes of the majority of innocent migrants, it confirms what the radicalized minority claims against it.


Esteemed Excellencies,

Developments suggest that the migrant crisis will further complicate. The end of the civil war in Syria is not yet in sight. Rather, the conflict is further deepened and already resembles a war of each against all.

Migrants stand between the impoverished societies they are fleeing from and the gates of Europe which are slowly closing.

The Mediterranean has become a mass graveyard of migrants. Refugees taking refuge in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have become restless and mass leave the camps and head towards Greece, where the Schengen border is porous. In such conditions, Corridor 10 is the fastest, safest and least expensive transit route for the migrants.

Hence, the Balkans is not new, but old route with a new name. If once the name of the route was Via Egnatia or Via Militaris, today it is Via Migrantes. Unlike the past, today, due to ineffective policies, this corridor is interrupted by walls, defending the national borders and territorial sovereignty.

Distinguished Attendees,

The migrant crisis revealed the crisis of the European institutions. It turned out that the EU functions well in times of peace and prosperity, but not in times of crisis. In a crisis, the EU cannot make decisions and thus the crisis deepens.

The inefficient security and migration policy of the Union has contributed this humanitarian and social phenomenon to become a grave security challenge. Governments were forced overnight to become smugglers, transporting migrants through their territories.

The external borders of the EU and NATO are porous. The states in charge to protect these external borders failed. Member-states were left alone, and each of them implemented its own policy of dealing with the crisis. The integrated border management was replaced by erecting walls and use of armed forces. The Schengen system was practically suspended while the Dublin Regulation 3 is being amended. In a crisis, the EU has no mechanism to sanction the behavior of its member-state.

Borders are closed, ramps are down, raised walls have two negative effects. First, they tighten the bilateral relations between the states. Second, they put pressure on migrants who see all this as a gate that closes even faster.


Ladies and Gentlemen,

How is the Republic of Macedonia dealing with the migrant crisis? Macedonia is the first country in Europe to declare a crisis situation due to the migrant crisis.

Since the beginning of this year, about 300,000 migrants have passed through the Republic of Macedonia. Only in the past 5 months, more than 120,300 have been registered. Daily, Macedonia is passed by 4,000 to 7,000 migrants. They are given water, food, fast and safe transportation.

Monthly, Macedonia spends over one million Euros of its budget for migrants and activates the Crisis Management System. We are still waiting the assistance from the Union to face the migrant crisis.

The migration crisis has reminded the European Union that the Balkans is a continuation of the Eastern-Mediterranean corridor. If the Union timely integrated this key corridor, the situation with the migrants would have been different.

If the corridor is divided by walls and barriers, it will turn into a dead end where both the states and the migrants will be stuck. Now, the states and the migrants suffer the consequences of the failure of the Union. In such circumstances, best function and profit the most problematic categories, such as organized crime groups and their networks.

The care of migrants in the Balkan countries which are not members of the Union is unsustainable, because these countries have neither the capacity nor the resources to cope with the incoming waves of migrants.

Esteemed Excellencies,

Refugees, migrants, are a political, economic, social, security, demographic and confessional challenge that Europe has yet to deliver a coherent collective response. The ongoing efforts of the Union to stop the migration not only did not work out, but further exacerbated the problem. FRONTEX and Mare Nostrum have encouraged the migrants that they will successfully reach their goal. A new approach is needed that would transfer the migrants from the initial to the final point. We monitor the implementation of the Hot Spot Strategy of the European Union, which, unfortunately, does not diminish the illegal migration. In the future, many critics will comment that this decision favors the selection of eligible and ineligible migrants.

It is obvious that there is no common EU policy on migrant crisis. We have to be on the table when this policy is created. A decision cannot be taken on the Balkan migration corridor without the participation of the countries through which this corridor passes, regardless of whether they are EU member-states or candidate-countries for membership. The Balkans is part of Europe; the European Union cannot speak on behalf of the entire Europe until it integrates the Balkans.

We are aware that the migrant crisis affects all countries - the countries of origin, the transit countries and the destination countries. It therefore requires a response that will include all parties. And that response should encompass not only the consequences but also the causes of the migrant crisis. Peace is needed in crisis regions. The best security policy on the European continent is a policy that would ensure prosperity, economic and democratic development in the immediate and wider European neighborhood.

Thank you.