The beginning of the siege of the Bosnian capital was the “day when Europe died in Sarajevo”, affirms Delo, which marks the occasion with a piece by Bosnian author Dzevad Karahasan –

Bosnia-Herzegovina is still in the throes of serious crisis, because the Dayton Agreement [which put an end to the conflict in 1995] imposed state structure that was unviable, from both a legal and a logical point of view. And when the international and local bureaucrats suggest altering it in any way, they are immediately told that they cannot touch it, because any change would upset the delicate balance of peace. The only peace in Bosnia is the peace of graveyards. And even then, that is not always the case.

For its part, the Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz devotes several pages to commemoration ceremonies that “Two decades since the attack on Bosnia-Herzegovina”, and notably the “red line” formed on 6 April by 11,541 red chairs set in a row on the Avenue Tito in memory of the residents of the town who died in the war. The newspaper also points out that the day will also serve to celebrate “the 550th anniversary of the founding of Sarajevo and 67th anniversary of the city’s liberation from fascist forces”.

The perspective of inclusion in the European Union could herald a new departure for Bosnia, but, as Die Presse points out, the way forward is far from easy. In an editorial entitled “The European union and Bosnian schizophrenia”, the Viennese daily argues that the EU should go back to its roots and position itself as a project for peace. But for the moment, the EU is markedly indifferent to what is happening in Bosnia –

The EU has made it clear to Bosnian politicians that their country cannot adhere to the EU because of its complicated structures established by the international community in Dayton. However, there is no intra-Bosnian agreement on new structures.

In Madrid, El País insists that the post-war period will only come to an end on the day when Bosnia-Herzegovina enter the EU –

Bosnia-Herzegovina has no national day, because the politicians cannot agree on a date. [...] The country is still divided into two entities [...] Today its duplicate administrations and complete absence of shared national feeling define it as a country that may have healed its physical wounds, but not one that has achieved reconciliation.

... the quality of Kosovo-Serbian relationships, even after a year of negotiations, has changed little. The two countries still do not recognise each other’s legitimacy, hence the need to continue the discussions to arrive at a stable relationship.

... For Pristina, the negotiations may eventually lead to its recognition by the five European countries that have not yet endorsed its independence (Cyprus, Spain, Romania, Slovakia and Greece) and the establishment of a new legal framework. The failure to define the legal status of Kosovo, however, requires a new resolution from the UN Security Council – with Serbia’s assent. The EU is still offering Kosovo the chance to join the EU and is promising it a feasibility study on its integration, though without actually opening up the Stabilisation and Association process. Serbia, however, was able to obtain EU candidate status, because it entered the negotiations with clear goals.

... Brussels entered the negotiations to unblock the status quo and do more to attract Serbia to the EU, thus demonstrating its own usefulness. Kosovo entered the negotiations without a clear definition of goals… Serbia, finally, has stayed focused on candidate status while continuing to challenge the independence, sovereignty and functionality of Kosovo – an objective it has clearly achieved. Kosovo, on the other hand, has lost its chance to normalise the situation. Each country will soon enter its election cycle – a phase of “normal” instability. Negotiations for Serbian membership in the EU will not commence unless the Serbian and Kosovar political situations are clarified and stable. And it is Brussels that will signal the time when they may sit once more around a table to unblock the status quo.

Croatia has become the 28th member of the European Union. The democratic dream of an optimistic people in the late 1980s and early 1990s has been transformed into doubt over the last two decades, confronted by a reality that’s anything but idyllic because of the problems faced by both Croatia and by the EU, whose workings are far from ideal. But as of yesterday that dream has become the reality we will have to live with. Of course, we must be realistic. Following the referendum, and especially after July 1, 2013 [when membership comes into force], Croatia will not become a land of plenty. The EU is not a remedy against everything that troubles us. It is far from being a personification of Good, an idyllic community of states and nations. It has its problems and its often painful methods for solving them. In such a “community of interests”, Croatia must find its proper place. There are many conflicts, and the Union provides fertile soil for eurosceptics. But for now, there is no doubt that the accession to the EU is a big step for Croatia. The country has lost nothing, and especially not her sovereignty. It can only benefit.

Senol Selimovic, a columnist for Sloboda Dalmacija, a daily from Split, reflects on the “historical record for low voter turnout in an EU membership referendum” that Croats set on January 22:

At 43.6 percent, turnout is the lowest ever recorded for this kind of consultation at a European level. It is even lower than the percentage of Hungarians (45.62 percent) who voted in the 2003 referendum on the future of their country inside Europe. “If the Croatian government had not in the meantime changed the constitutional law on the referendum, the referendum would have failed for lack of voter turnout. But the Croatian political elite avoided this “trap” in time, and they can now clink glasses over the fruits of their long effort to persuade the people on the future of the country… The low turnout, however, does leave a bitter taste, indicating as it does that the arguments put forward by the political leaders in favour of the EU have been unconvincing and that they have failed to inspire citizens to take part in a vote of such historical importance… The Croatian government even betrayed that part of the pro-European but democratically-minded public that denounced the lack of equal treatment for organisations and groups that opposed joining the EU, in terms of financing and media slots to present their arguments. Instead of an information campaign, it has been a propaganda campaign. In place of a historic referendum like that of 1991 (on Croatian independence), in which 83.5 percent of the population took part, the January 22 referendum will go down in European history for its abstention rate.

Augustin Palokaj of Jutarnji List focuses on the sigh of relief that Brussels must have uttered after Croatia’s “yes” vote:

By voting yes, Croatian citizens have shown that joining was not just the project of the political elites, but a project that had their backing too. Nevertheless, the low voter turnout in such a significant popular vote has not gone unnoticed. Indeed, the number of participants, as well as the number of “yes” voters, sends a clear message: Croatians want to be in the EU, but they do not expect great things from it. The EU is not a perfect institution. We can blame a lot of things on the way it operates, but like it or not, it is better to be a member of this Union and fight for our interests inside it. In short, the Croats have no illusions about the EU. There is no room for euphoria, and that’s a good thing. [...] Considering the difficult situation the EU is in now, the Croatian “yes” is also a great comfort to the EU, as a “no” would have meant a glaring failure for the Union.

With less than two months to go before elections, the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) of Ms. Kosor, lagging in the polls, is banking on recovering momentum through the prospect of EU membership. That agreement must be ratified by the European Parliament in early December, when the elections in Croatia are held. The party is seeking to allay concerns over the loss of identity and control over Croatia's sovereignty that emerge from a reading of the draft agreement. "The price of bread, milk, medicine and books will certainly go up, but this should not distract us from the EU, because VAT will change whether we are a member of the EU or not.” Furthermore, the paper affirms, “if the EU demands the same rights for foreigners seeking work in Croatia (i.e., waiving of the requirement that they -- executives, for example -- speak Croatian), this may contribute to the improved competitiveness of Croatian firms".

Another Serbian newspaper, Blic, emphasises that Belgrade had not expected such a tough line from the German Chancellor and asks whether the government or the international community has not deceived the Serbian people by telling them “that Kosovo and the EU were two separate issues – that is, EU membership has nothing to do with the loss of Kosovo.”

In Germany, the Frankfurter Rundschau reports that “when it comes to membership issues, the Balkans, if one is to believe the European Commission, are ‘on the right track’. Each step ahead is acclaimed with stiff solemnity.” But “those who lived under communism feel instinctively that it is not the formal announcements that count, but progress on the basic issues. No wonder there are anxious fears afoot in the Balkans: 'Do they really want us in? And what will it cost?”

This “individual integration into the EU” should be a warning to the government, which, incapable of solving social and economic problems, could see “hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians obtain foreign citizenship” the Russian newspaper warns. But the real threat that’s emerging is separatism, since Kiev can “lose control over the territories inhabited by the foreign nationals,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta adds, quoting the Ukrainian expert Alexander Gavrich: “For separation, it’s enough that the slogans of cultural belonging be transformed into political demands.”

On its front page, Hürriyet publishes a photograph of the 1 August meeting, showing Erdogan chairing the YAŞ, which it compares it with a similar picture from last November, when he was flanked by the chief of general staff – a change that implies that "the army now appears to be subservient to political power as it is in democratic countries." For editorialist Cengiz Çandar, the situation "will give free reign to Erdogan, who will no longer be able to blame the ‘military factor’ when justifying his refusal to adopt a progressive interior policy. The road is now open to the Prime Minister to introduce the civil and democratic constitution" that he promised in his campaign for the elections of last June.

The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on Romania’s and Bulgaria’s inclusion in Schengen in early June, while the final decision of the European Council – which will have to be unanimous – is expected in the autumn. Romania will have to secure "the second longest land border" in the EU, notes the Bucharest daily, which reminds its readers that the initial date for the inclusion of the two countries, 1st March 2011, was postponed when Germany and France exercised a veto.

“Will this latest development (…) have an impact on Iceland’s accession to the European Union?” wonders Le Soir. In spite of “threats from London and The Hague to slow down or even block negotiations on the island’s entry into the EU,” the “huge ‘no vote’ (93%) in the referendum on the first version of the agreement in 2010 did not prevent the opening of accession negotiations in July” of last year.  Interviewed by the Belgian daily, political scientist Baldur Thorhallsson explains that the British, who responded angrily to the first  referendum, “were nonetheless accommodating, because they would like to have a new eurosceptic ally in the EU.”

Polling company director Olafur Gylfason points out that the Icelanders “draw a clear distinction between the Icesave affair and the issue of EU membership.”  Icelandic public opinion has changed significantly since the financial crisis, continues Le Soir. “Amid the initial panic, many people believed that Europe would provide a safeguard for the future of the island,” explains Gylfason,  but “they are less enthusiastic. Only 18% of the population judge the EU to be credible, and the fate of accession plans, which have divided the country’s centre-left government, will be determined by the very sensitive issue of fishing rights.