Europe Day is often treated as a commemorative date. It should be more than that. It should be a discipline of political thought: a moment to ask whether Europe is still capable of turning its promise into reality.

The Schuman Declaration was not a ceremonial text. It was a strategic act. It offered Europe a way out of the logic of rivalry by binding states together through common interests, common rules and shared responsibility. It understood that peace could not be based on sentiment alone. It had to be organised. That is why Europe Day matters. It reminds us that Europe was not built by avoiding difficult questions, but by answering them through cooperation.

Southeastern Europe now faces its own version of this test. The region is no longer in the immediate post-conflict moment, where cooperation was initially conceived as a safeguard against the return of instability. This goal remains important, but it is no longer sufficient. The world around us has changed. The geopolitical climate has hardened, the space for uncertainty has narrowed, and multilateralism is increasingly judged on the basis of concrete results. The European Union is also redefining its priorities around competitiveness, security, and strategic autonomy.

The Regional Cooperation Council was established eighteen years ago, at a time when Southeastern Europe was emerging from conflict with the shared conviction that dialogue could prevent relapse and that shared values ​​could ensure long-term stability. At that time, just keeping political actors in the same room required effort and patience. Creating habits of cooperation was not symbolic, it was stabilizing.

This logic still holds true. But Europe Day invites us to ask a more demanding question: what should regional cooperation do now? Eighteen is the age when mere survival no longer impresses, significance becomes the real measure of maturity. For the RCC, the importance lies in maintaining a careful balance between mandate, geography and shared values.

However, uncertainty is not only a constraint, it also reveals opportunities. Geography, often treated as fate, can also be a strategy. Southeastern Europe has become a critical corridor at a time when the continent faces disruptions in energy supplies, logistics and supply chains. The region is increasingly seen as a “nearshoring” destination, as companies reassess risk and proximity. Within this broader landscape, the Western Balkans function as connective tissue, connecting EU member states with neighboring economies and anchoring vital transport and energy routes.

Enlargement is therefore no longer just a normative promise. It is linked to the very sustainability and strategic coherence of the EU. The question is no longer whether enlargement should proceed, but how it can advance with credibility and urgency. The institutional pathways exist. What determines progress is political will.

This is why Europe Day in 2026 should also be a moment to reflect on the future of the region. Montenegro most likely has a serious chance of becoming the next member state of the European Union. Albania could follow the same path. These developments would be historic for the respective countries, but would also reshape the logic of cooperation across the region.

This is not an abstract institutional question. It goes to the very heart of Europe's credibility in South-East Europe. If enlargement proceeds country by country, the region must remain connected through markets, infrastructure, energy systems, digital services, skills, mobility and common standards. The next level must be designed for a region on the move: partly within the EU, partly in negotiations, but fully connected to the same European future.

The first phase of regional cooperation focused on reconciliation, stabilization and rebuilding trust after conflict. This mission remains historically important. But the next phase should focus more directly on economic convergence, integration into the EU Single Market, energy interconnection, digital interoperability, infrastructure sustainability, labor mobility and strategic preparedness. The objective should not be simply to maintain dialogue, but to create conditions where the progress of one economy strengthens the region as a whole.

Therefore, regional cooperation should mature in parallel with the European aspirations of the region itself. If Montenegro enters first and Albania later, their membership should not represent the end of regional cooperation. On the contrary, it should represent its improvement. The region will need stronger coordination mechanisms, more practical forms of solidarity and a clearer understanding of how cooperation between EU members and non-members works.

The United States administration’s decision to withdraw from the RCC Board must be understood within this broader context. The United States has played an indispensable role in stabilizing the region over the past three decades through diplomacy, security engagement, and continued institutional support. This contribution remains fundamental and is not diminished by the withdrawal from a single institutional format. At the same time, the message we have received is clear: the responsibility for shaping the trajectory of the region is increasingly falling on European actors themselves.

This responsibility ultimately stems from the citizens. For more than a decade, the RCC has measured public opinion across the Balkans on political, economic and social issues. Their perspectives vary when it comes to EU membership, institutional trust and democratic performance. However, one aspiration remains remarkably consistent: the desire for a quality of life comparable to that enjoyed within the European Union. Citizens demand fairer institutions, stronger rule of law and more opportunities.

Support for regional cooperation reflects this pragmatism. In 2025, 64% of respondents continued to see it as a mechanism capable of producing concrete improvements. In some areas, such as free roaming, instant payments, trade facilitation and mobility, the results are visible and measurable. In other areas, the foundation is in place, but implementation requires sustained political commitment.

Obstacles are inevitable in a region shaped by complex histories and fragile political environments. The decisive factor is how institutions respond to them. Credibility is not built on the absence of difficulties, but on the ability to adapt, learn, and move on.

The pressures facing regional cooperation go beyond unresolved bilateral disputes. A broader transformation is evident in the way multilateral initiatives and development assistance are evaluated. Greater emphasis is being placed on measurable results and speed of implementation. Such scrutiny is warranted. However, evaluating cooperation solely through short-term indicators risks overlooking its structural value. Processes are the means through which predictability, fairness and trust between partners are built.

Institutional maturity, in this environment, requires both reflection and strategic ambition. The RCC has launched an assessment of the cumulative impact of 30 years of the South East European Cooperation Process, providing the upcoming Bulgarian and Romanian presidencies with evidence-based analysis rather than ceremonial. The SEE2030 Strategy similarly reflects an orientation towards long-term sustainability.

The Regional Common Market is also being considered for its measurable economic impact, particularly as it supports the EU Growth Plan for the Western Balkans. The conclusions of the Berlin Process Summit in London are being translated, together with partners such as CEFTA, the Energy Community, the Transport Community and RESPA, into concrete measures.

Regional cooperation is no substitute for enlargement, nor can it resolve every political dispute. It cannot create political will where it is lacking. What it can do is reduce friction, manage interdependence, and mitigate systemic risk. In an era of geopolitical fragmentation and competition, its strength lies not in rhetoric, but in the continued delivery of stability, resilience, and shared prosperity.

Europe Day should remind us that the European project has never been just about institutions. It was about turning interdependence into peace, rules into trust, and proximity into shared progress. This lesson is relevant again for South-Eastern Europe. The region does not need ceremonial cooperation. It needs cooperation that prepares it for the Europe that is taking shape: more geopolitical, more competitive, more demanding and, if we choose wisely, more united.

The objective is not institutional preservation for its own sake. It is to ensure that cooperation remains useful, credible and in line with citizens' expectations. The promise of Europe must become Europe's reality. On Europe Day, this is the message that South-East Europe must send: we do not just aspire to join Europe, we are ready to help shape it.