North Macedonia: In Brief

Summary: The United States has supported North Macedonia since its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 and strongly backs its European Union (EU) and NATO ambitions. (The country's constitutional name was the Republic of Macedonia until February 2019, when it was renamed the Republic of North Macedonia.) On multiple occasions, the United States played a key role in defusing political crises and interethnic tensions in North Macedonia. For more than two decades, a U.S. diplomat led United Nations–brokered negotiations between Greece and then-Macedonia to resolve their bilateral dispute over the latter's use of the name Macedonia. With strong U.S. support, in 2018 North Macedonia and Greece reached the landmark Prespa Agreement, which resulted in the name change and resolved their bilateral dispute.

Summary: Many Members of Congress have supported North Macedonia's integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. In 2007, the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act (P.L. 110-17) was passed to affirm congressional support for enlargement and make North Macedonia eligible for assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. Resolutions were also sponsored in both chambers in 2018 to support the Prespa Agreement with Greece and endorse North Macedonia's bid for NATO membership. Congressional interest in North Macedonia is also connected to broader policy concerns over the influence of Russia, China, and other external actors in the Western Balkans.

Summary: In 2017, North Macedonia emerged from a destabilizing two-year crisis with a new government that pledged to redouble the country's Euro-Atlantic integration efforts and enact reforms to tackle the corruption and state capture that took root under previous governments. The Prespa Agreement removes Greece's veto over North Macedonia's NATO and EU membership bids. Many expect North Macedonia to become NATO's 30th member in 2019 or 2020 and the EU to decide in 2019 whether to launch formal accession negotiations with the country. Despite positive assessments of North Macedonia's progress, the forthcoming period is generally viewed as critical to consolidating North Macedonia's recent gains and implementing reforms to bolster economic growth, reduce unemployment, and depoliticize state institutions.

Summary: Given U.S. and NATO involvement in conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s, as well as the U.S. role in defusing crises in North Macedonia, Members of Congress may be interested in North Macedonia's stability during what many U.S. and EU officials consider to be a crucial, albeit fragile, opening for reforms. Members may also consider the role that external actors such as Russia and China have played in recent years or could play going forward, particularly if North Macedonia's EU accession negotiations are further delayed.

The United States has been a steadfast supporter of North Macedonia since its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 and strongly backs its European Union (EU) and NATO membership ambitions. (North Macedonia's constitutional name was "Republic of Macedonia" until February 2019.) Many Members of Congress have supported North Macedonia's aspirations for integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. On multiple occasions, U.S. leadership was critical to defusing political crises and interethnic tensions in the country

As North Macedonia moves closer to NATO membership, and potentially EU membership, the country shows signs of renewed stability following a political crisis from 2015 to 2017. The years 2019-2020, in which North Macedonia is expected to become NATO's 30 th member and the EU will likely determine whether to launch accession negotiations, are considered key to consolidating the country's recent breakthrough in its relations with Greece and sustaining its reform momentum.

North Macedonia is a small, landlocked country in southeastern Europe (see Figure 1 ). For most of recorded history, its present-day territory was part of empires and kingdoms centered on or near the Balkan Peninsula. The Ottoman Empire ruled the area from the 14 th century until the 1912-1913 Balkan wars. Beginning in the 19 th century, this territory (and surrounding territory also referred to as "Macedonia") was claimed by Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia, whose leaders regarded the local Orthodox Christian population as their own kin. After World War I, the territory of present-day North Macedonia was incorporated into the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Following World War II, Macedonia became one of six constituent republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In 1991, it declared independence as the Republic of Macedonia, following Slovenia and Croatia, two other Yugoslav republics.

For much of the 20 th and 21 st centuries, Macedonian identity and statehood have been challenged or denied by officials in its larger neighbors, including Serbia (until the creation of Yugoslavia), Greece, and Bulgaria. Some analysts believe that the comparatively small size of the population that identifies as Macedonian, coupled with external challenges to the legitimacy of Macedonian identity and statehood, imbues Macedonian nationalism with a sense of vulnerability. This, in turn, has made many Macedonian nationalists reluctant to make concessions on the country's name, most notably in the course of the country's nearly three-decade dispute with Greece (see "Rapprochement with Greece," below).

Although North Macedonia largely avoided the conflict that devastated other parts of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, it has been destabilized by periods of tension between its Slavic Macedonian majority (nearly 65% of the population) and ethnic Albanian minority (25%). Tensions between Macedonians and Albanians partly reflect diverging views about whether North Macedonia should be the homeland of and for ethnic Macedonians or a multiethnic state with protections for its ethnolinguistic minority communities. Some Macedonian nationalists fear that extending further cultural rights or autonomy to Albanians would change the character of North Macedonia or result in its dismemberment. Many Albanians, on the other hand, fear marginalization.

During the 1990s, Albanian leaders in North Macedonia criticized language, citizenship, education, and cultural policies that they believed made Albanians second-class citizens and contributed to their underrepresentation in the public administration. Interethnic clashes periodically occurred but stopped short of full-scale violence. In 2001, however, Albanian insurgents waged a months-long armed campaign against state security forces over what they viewed as systematic discrimination against Albanians. At the government's request, NATO deployed several peacekeeping missions to the country between 2001 and 2003. U.S. and EU officials helped broker the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement, which provides for partial devolution of power to municipalities, equal minority representation in the public administration, and greater rights to use the Albanian language and symbols in official settings. While interethnic relations have largely stabilized since 2001, political crises periodically created strain.

North Macedonia is a parliamentary republic with a unicameral, 120-member legislature. The prime minister serves as head of government, while the directly elected president is mostly a ceremonial position.

Since independence, political competition has largely centered on the rivalry between North Macedonia's two largest parties: the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM) and the center-right, nationalist VMRO-DPMNE. Both parties are considered to be "ethnic Macedonian" parties in that they typically field ethnic Macedonian candidates and seek ethnic Macedonians' votes. Some observers contend that competition between SDSM and VMRO-DPMNE has often been a greater source of instability than interethnic tensions. Almost all governments have been led by either SDSM or VMRO-DPMNE, usually in coalition with one or more ethnic Albanian parties.

Since 2017, Prime Minister Zoran Zaev has led a coalition government comprised of the SDSM, the Albanian Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), and several smaller parties. The coalition holds a slim majority of seats in parliament. The largest opposition party is VMRO-DPMNE. On May 5, 2019, Stevo Pendarovski (SDSM) was elected president of North Macedonia, replacing Gjorge Ivanov (VMRO-DPMNE), who had opposed many of the Zaev government's initiatives.

In 2018, the Zaev government reached an agreement with Greece to resolve a nearly 30-year dispute (see below, "Rapprochement with Greece") and lift Greece's veto over North Macedonia's NATO and EU membership bids. North Macedonia signed its NATO accession protocol in February 2019, and the government has pledged to implement economic and political reforms required for EU membership. Some observers believe that North Macedonia's reform-oriented political climate could grow fragile if the EU delays the country's long-awaited accession negotiations beyond 2019 (see below, "NATO and EU Membership").

Democratic Backsliding and 2015-2017 Political Crisis

North Macedonia's reform record and relative stability in the 1990s made it an early Western Balkan frontrunner for EU and NATO membership. Its NATO Membership Action Plan was launched in 1999. In 2004, it became the first Western Balkan country to have its Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU—considered a first step toward membership—enter into force. North Macedonia became a candidate for EU membership the following year.

In the late 2000s, however, the introduction and implementation of reforms began to lag and the country's democracy experienced setbacks. These trends culminated in a political crisis from 2015 to 2017. Some analysts believe Greece's veto of North Macedonia's NATO membership bid at the alliance's 2008 Bucharest Summit triggered this period of backsliding. According to the International Crisis Group, Nikola Gruevski (VMRO-DPMNE), who became North Macedonia's prime minister in 2006 and held the position for the following decade, responded to the "huge shock" of the veto by escalating a state-backed "antiquisation" campaign that promoted "an idiosyncratic view of [ethnic] Macedonians' glorious ancient past." The initiative alienated the country's Albanian population and widened the rift with Greece.

In addition to Gruevski's controversial appeals to Macedonian nationalism, international and domestic NGOs expressed concern over setbacks in the rule of law, judicial independence, and media freedom. Corruption and the ruling party's reported abuse of public institutions also became problematic issues. As a result of these developments and Greece's continued veto threats, North Macedonia's EU and NATO membership bids lagged behind those of its neighbors: Croatia and Albania joined NATO in 2009 and Montenegro in 2017, Croatia became an EU member in 2013, and the EU launched accession negotiations for Montenegro and Serbia in 2012 and 2014, respectively.

In 2015, a two-year political crisis was triggered when opposition parties, led by Zaev, accused the Gruevski government of orchestrating an illegal wiretapping network that targeted more than 20,000 individuals, including opposition and government officials, activists, diplomats, and journalists. Transcripts of allegedly wiretapped conversations implicated top government officials in abuses of office, including extortion, blackmail, and electoral fraud, among others. An EU-backed Senior Experts' Group viewed the recordings as the government's attempt to gain leverage over its rivals, judges and prosecutors, and its own officials. The scandal triggered pro- and anti-government protests that threatened to turn violent and renew interethnic tensions.

The United States and the EU helped defuse the crisis by brokering the 2015 Przino Agreement, which established a timeline for early elections. These elections, held in 2016, had mixed results: Gruevski's VMRO-DPMNE and Zaev's SDSM were virtually tied with vote shares of 38% (51 seats) and 37% (49 seats), respectively. The SDSM ultimately reached a coalition agreement with the DUI and the Alliance for Albanians. However, the United States and the EU again intervened when President Ivanov refused to give Zaev the mandate to form a government and, shortly thereafter, when a violent mob assaulted SDSM lawmakers and allies in the parliamentary chamber. Several VMRO-DPMNE lawmakers were accused of aiding the attack.

In May 2017, the SDSM-led coalition formed a government under Zaev. Since then, the political situation in North Macedonia has largely stabilized. Local elections in October 2017 further cemented the SDSM's position: It won mayoral elections in 57 out of 81 municipalities, including most urban areas. The VMRO-DPMNE won just five mayoral elections. These poor results prompted Gruevski to resign as party leader. Hristijan Mickoski was elected to replace him.

Prime Minister Zaev has pledged to enact reforms to meet EU and NATO membership requirements, with strong backing from the EU, NATO, and the United States. Zaev considered repairing North Macedonia's bilateral relations with Bulgaria and Greece—EU and NATO members with veto power in both organizations—as a key step to renewing progress toward Euro-Atlantic integration. In 2017, North Macedonia and Bulgaria agreed to a Friendship Treaty (ratified in 2018) that established a framework to improve bilateral relations, which were historically fraught due in part to Bulgaria's non-recognition of Macedonian language and identity. While most regarded the treaty as a positive development, resolving North Macedonia's dispute with Greece was generally considered a greater challenge.

Greece strongly objected to North Macedonia's adoption of the name Republic of Macedonia upon its 1991 independence, viewing it as an implicit territorial claim to Greece's northern region bearing the same name as well as an appropriation of the cultural heritage of ancient Macedon. For nearly three decades, North Macedonia's goal of EU and NATO membership was stymied by Greece's veto threat in both organizations. The unresolved dispute adversely affected North Macedonia's Euro-Atlantic ambitions and undercut reform momentum. The Zaev government's EU and NATO accession platform, as well as receptiveness under Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, created an opening for a new round of negotiations. North Macedonia and Greece reached the historic Prespa Agreement in June 2018, whereby Macedonia would change its name to North Macedonia and Greece would lift its veto over North Macedonia's Euro-Atlantic integration, among other provisions.

The agreement's final enactment, however, was far from certain. It required legislative action in Greece's and North Macedonia's parliaments, where both governments faced sharp challenges from nationalist opponents. To the surprise of some observers, in January 2019 parliaments in both countries passed the required measures, albeit with razor-thin vote margins.

U.S. and EU officials have praised Zaev and Tsipras for demonstrating leadership by making concessions that were politically controversial but viewed as important for the long-term prosperity of both countries. Nevertheless, Zaev and Tsipras expended political capital in the process. Zaev's government accepted a controversial partial amnesty of individuals involved in the 2017 attack in parliament in exchange for the support of some VMRO-DPMNE lawmakers, while some Albanian parties made their support contingent on legislation to expand the official use of the Albanian language. Tsipras narrowly survived a no-confidence vote.

In another sign of improved ties, in April 2019 Tsipras became the first Greek leader to visit North Macedonia. Analysts note, however, that improved bilateral relations could be tested by parliamentary elections due to be held in Greece by October 2019. Public opinion polls indicate that Tsipras could lose power. His most probable successor, Kyriakos Mitsotakis of the New Democracy party, opposed the Prespa Agreement. While Mitsotakis has since conceded that the agreement is binding and applies to North Macedonia's NATO accession, some observers expressed concern when he stated that a New Democracy–led government would block North Macedonia's EU accession progress if Greek interests are threatened, including commercial interests for products from Greece's Macedonia region.

Following the breakthrough in North Macedonia's bilateral relations with Bulgaria and Greece, U.S. and EU officials encouraged the Zaev government to implement political and economic reforms. Political instability, weak rule of law, corruption, a large shadow economy, and skilled labor shortages are viewed as impediments to improving conditions in North Macedonia. One of the key challenges will be surmounting the "deep-seated culture of state capture, cronyism, and corruption" that took root under previous governments.

In 2015, the EU identified Urgent Reform Priorities for North Macedonia. These priorities, along with others from the EU-backed Senior Experts' Group, continue to guide the reform agenda. Priorities include improving judicial independence, implementing public administration and public financial oversight strategies to depoliticize appointments, updating the voters' list to improve trust in elections, and strengthening anticorruption institutions. Analysts believe that the governing coalition's slim majority in parliament may make it difficult to pass reforms without partial support from the opposition VMRO-DPMNE.

On May 5, 2019, Stevo Pendarovski, a candidate backed by Zaev's SDSM, was elected president of North Macedonia. The presidency is a largely ceremonial office, but relations between the Zaev government and former President Gjorge Ivanov (2009-2019), an ally of former Prime Minister Gruevski, were fraught due to Ivanov's refusal to sign numerous laws backed by the Zaev government. He also opposed the Prespa Agreement.

Pendarovski received 52% of the vote, while Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova, the candidate backed by VMRO-DPMNE, received 45%. Pendarovski's campaign centered on the government's progress in guiding North Macedonia to NATO membership, while Siljanovska-Davkova's criticized the Prespa Agreement and pledged to "use all legal means to prove that it is not in accordance with international law." Analysts viewed the presidential elections as a litmus test of public support for the government after the Prespa Agreement and amid broad dissatisfaction over corruption, high unemployment, and poverty. Despite Pendarovski's victory, SDSM officials reportedly believe that the results depict a narrowing pro-government support base. While foreign leaders herald the breakthrough with Greece, voters in North Macedonia are likely eager for the government to implement economic and political reforms that have a more tangible impact on their quality of life—but have received less attention thus far.

North Macedonia was one of Yugoslavia's poorest and most underdeveloped regions. Its economy experienced sharp decline during the 1990s. In the 2000s and 2010s, its GDP growth rate fluctuated in response to political instability and global economic trends. With the 2015-2017 political crisis seemingly resolved, the International Monetary Fund projects real GDP growth to be 2% or slightly higher in 2019 and 2020. In its 2018 report on North Macedonia, the European Commission lauded the country's public finance transparency reforms but expressed concern over unemployment, infrastructure deficiencies, weak contract enforcement, and large informal economy. Renewed crisis is one of the greatest risks to economic health going forward.

Unemployment decreased from over 30% in 2010 to just over 20% in 2018. However, youth unemployment is more than twice as high. Over 20% of the population lives below the poverty line. Unemployment and poverty contribute to high rates of emigration from North Macedonia. An estimated 20%-30% of the population (450,000-630,000 people) emigrated between 1994 and 2013, mostly to Western Europe.

The EU is North Macedonia's most important economic partner. Of North Macedonia's total trade in 2017, 70% was with EU member states, while over 80% of North Macedonia's exports went to EU countries. Trade between the two is almost fully liberalized. Successive governments in North Macedonia have prioritized foreign direct investment, which has increased somewhat since the late 1990s due in part to a low corporate tax rate, low labor costs, and free trade zones. In 2017, the top five source countries of foreign direct investment in North Macedonia were EU member states. North Macedonia was rated 10 th in the World Bank's 2019 Ease of Doing Business rankings, the best ranking of any country in the Balkans and East-Central Europe and the fifth-highest in Europe. The Zaev government's 2018 Plan for Economic Growth includes incentives for foreign firms that operate in the country's free economic zones.

Since independence, successive governments in North Macedonia have viewed NATO and EU membership as the country's top foreign policy priority. The United States strongly supports North Macedonia's prospective membership in both organizations, and U.S. and EU officials consider the Euro-Atlantic integration process to be a source of stability and a driver of political and economic reforms in North Macedonia. Anchoring North Macedonia in Euro-Atlantic institutions is viewed as a way to help prevent the emergence of a strategic vacuum in the Western Balkans. The fixed goal of EU and NATO membership has helped guide reforms under the Zaev government by establishing a reform framework and identifying policy priorities.

North Macedonia appears likely to become NATO's 30 th member in late 2019 or early 2020. On February 6, 2019, following the finalization of the Prespa Agreement with Greece, North Macedonia signed its NATO accession protocol. For North Macedonia to join the alliance, all 29 NATO allies must first ratify the protocol in accordance with domestic procedures. On February 8, Greece became the first NATO member to ratify it. In the United States, the Senate is responsible for protocol ratification (by two-thirds majority). President Trump formally transmitted the protocol to the Senate on April 29, 2019. If all 29 NATO members approve the protocol, the NATO secretary general would formally invite North Macedonia to accede to the treaty. In the final step , North Macedonia would need to approve its NATO membership through a referendum or a parliamentary vote.

North Macedonia launched its NATO Membership Action Plan in 1999. North Macedonia has contributed to NATO missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Its 2018 Strategic Defense Review establishes a timeline for increasing defense spending from its 2013-2017 average of 1.1% of GDP to NATO's 2% target by 2024. The government plans to reach 2% by annually increasing defense spending by 0.2%. The government includes equipment modernization and streamlining the armed forces from approximately 8,200 to 6,800 active personnel as reform priorities.

North Macedonia's short-term prospects for EU membership are less certain. It has been an EU candidate since 2005, but its progress toward membership stalled largely due to the name dispute with Greece. Opinion polls indicate a strong base of popular support among Macedonians for EU membership in part due to the widespread belief that membership will improve their quality of life. Many observers, however, question whether there is unanimous support for enlargement among the leaders of the EU's 28 member states.

The next step in North Macedonia's membership bid would be for the EU to open accession negotiations. (Montenegro and Serbia's accession negotiations were launched in 2012 and 2014, respectively.) This would begin the lengthy process of harmonizing North Macedonia's domestic legislation with the body of EU treaties, laws, and rules known as the acquis communautaire , which is subdivided into 35 thematic "chapters." In order to open North Macedonia's accession negotiations, leaders from all 28 EU member states must agree.

Although the European Commission (the EU's executive) recommended launching accession negotiations with North Macedonia in 2018, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands were reportedly opposed, citing the need for continued reform progress in North Macedonia. As a result, EU leaders delayed launching negotiations and set 2019 as the target date for opening them. However, recent statements from French President Emmanuel Macron have prompted some observers to speculate that France may again seek to delay negotiations. Although the EU asserts that it is committed to further enlargement, analysts suggest that some European leaders and publics are wary amid various concerns about the EU's future and issues such as migration.

Observers have expressed concern that another delay in opening accession negotiations could deflate the Zaev government's reform agenda, damage the EU's reputation in the country, and enable Zaev's critics to charge that he sacrificed the country's name without any reward from the EU. It would likely add to the sense of uncertainty as to whether the EU would admit North Macedonia even if it met all membership requirements. Some analysts cite the reform drift, corruption, and democratic setbacks that followed NATO's 2008 Bucharest Summit—when Greece vetoed North Macedonia's membership invitation—as evidence of the backsliding that can occur when EU and NATO membership are perceived as being beyond reach.

As a candidate country, North Macedonia is eligible for assistance from the EU's Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance II (IPA II). Between 2014 and 2020, North Macedonia is expected to receive €664 million ($744 million at current exchange rate) in IPA II allocations. Some EU members provide additional aid to North Macedonia through national assistance programs.

Many analysts believe that EU and NATO membership would help build resilience against Russian influence in North Macedonia. Russia, which opposes NATO enlargement in the Balkans, was critical of the Prespa Agreement. In July 2018, Greece expelled two Russian diplomats in response to accusations that the Kremlin was aiding anti-Prespa protests. Prime Minister Zaev likewise accused a Kremlin-linked businessmen of funding a campaign that urged voters to boycott a referendum on changing the country's name. Pro-boycott narratives were spread through social media. Intelligence officials in North Macedonia and the West reportedly attributed online disinformation campaigns to pro-Russia groups. A U.S. diplomat described the campaign as "an extraordinarily complex, organized, and toxic amount of disinformation." In September, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis echoed these concerns during a visit to Skopje. Russia continues to challenge the legitimacy of the Prespa Agreement and push the narrative that the West "forced" North Macedonia into NATO.

Russia's ability to exert influence in the aftermath of the Prespa Agreement's signing may have been facilitated by a reportedly years-long campaign to increase Russia's intelligence footprint in the country, project soft power through Russian-Macedonian friendship organizations and Kremlin-linked media such as Sputnik and RT , forge alliances with local anti-establishment politicians and groups, and propagate anti-Western narratives that tap into nationalist fears. Russian soft power draws on cultural kinship and shared Orthodox Christian religious tradition with ethnic Macedonians, although Russian-Macedonian ties are less established and historically grounded than Russian ties to other Orthodox Christian populations such as Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs. Analysts believe that Russia's goal was to sustain instability and widen political and social divisions in order to undermine North Macedonia's Euro-Atlantic integration.

U.S. and EU officials have voiced concern over China's growing economic clout in the Western Balkans. China has invested in regional infrastructure, energy initiatives, and other sectors as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, an ambitious transcontinental project to expand Chinese trade and investment. In 2016, China's state-owned COSCO Shipping acquired majority stakes in the Piraeus Port Authority in Greece, reportedly with ambitions of using it as an entry point for container shipping to Western Europe via the Balkans. Within the Belt and Road Initiative framework, China established the "16+1" group in 2012 (now 17+1) to convene EU and non-EU countries in the Balkans and Central Europe, including North Macedonia, through annual leader summits.

China has not invested as heavily in North Macedonia as it has in other Western Balkan countries. The most significant investment thus far is a 2013 loan worth €580 million ($648 million at exchange current rate) from China's ExIm Bank to help fund two highway projects: Miladinovci-Stip (completed) and Kicevo-Ohrid (under construction). Chinese engineering and construction company Sinhydro was awarded the contract for construction, which began in 2014.

Some observers caution that the highway segments may highlight potential perils of Chinese investment in the region. The projects have been mired in several controversies. North Macedonia's Special Prosecutor Office—tasked with investigating abuses of office raised in the wiretapping scandal (see above)—filed unlawful influence charges against Gruevski and the former transport minister for allegedly violating procurement rules by awarding the contract to Sinohydro despite receiving a lower bid from another contractor. Officials reportedly extorted millions of euros from an intentionally inflated project budget. Some of the recordings capture alleged conversations between top officials "discussing direct payments from" Sinohydro. Furthermore, the relative ease of receiving Chinese financing, as well as the requirement that the recipient government serve as loan guarantor, could lead to an untenable public debt burden, particularly when project costs unexpectedly increase. Highway construction was halted in 2017 due to planning errors. After the delay, the contract with Sinohydro was amended with a three-year extension, and the Chinese firm reportedly sought an additional $160 million to complete the Kicevo-Ohrid segment, raising the construction costs by 10% over the initial estimate.

The United States and North Macedonia enjoy good relations. The United States strongly supports North Macedonia's NATO and EU membership bids. After Greece blocked North Macedonia's NATO entry in 2008, the United States signed a "Declaration of Strategic Partnership and Cooperation" with North Macedonia to signal U.S. commitment to expeditiously securing North Macedonia's NATO membership. Furthermore, the United States has cooperated with the EU to defuse political crises in North Macedonia, most recently in 2017.

The United States also assists North Macedonia with security challenges, including returned foreign fighters, trafficking, and cybersecurity. North Macedonia's Ministry of Interior estimates that 150 or more of its citizens fought with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, of which roughly 80 have since returned. The United States has cooperated with law enforcement and intelligence officials in North Macedonia to identify threats, provided training for judges and prosecutors involved in terrorism cases, and supported organizations that work toward countering violent extremism. The U.S. State Department classifies North Macedonia as a Tier 2 country with regard to trafficking in persons: Despite improvements in its efforts to combat trafficking, the government does not meet the State Department's minimum conditions for its elimination. Finally, U.S. Cyber Command, a unit in the Department of Defense, has worked with authorities in North Macedonia to improve cyber defense capabilities and is reportedly deploying one or more experts for on-site assistance.

The United States has provided significant amounts of foreign assistance to North Macedonia. From the country's independence in 1991 through FY2015, the United States obligated about $819 million in aid to North Macedonia, according to the USAID Greenbook. In 2007, the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act ( P.L. 110-17 ) was passed, making North Macedonia eligible for assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. As a candidate for EU and NATO membership, North Macedonia is eligible for assistance through the Countering Russian Influence Funds under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act enacted in 2017 ( P.L. 115-44 ). The United States provided $21.6 million in foreign assistance to North Macedonia in FY2017 and $15.3 million in FY2018. The Trump Administration's proposal to decrease foreign assistance levels, however, includes North Macedonia: The Administration requested $6.3 million for FY2019 and $5.7 million for FY2020.

Many Members of Congress supported Greece and North Macedonia's negotiations to resolve their bilateral dispute. Resolutions were sponsored in both chambers to support North Macedonia's landmark agreement with Greece and back its NATO membership bid. On February 6, 2019, the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs wrote an open letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging the Administration to back North Macedonia's accession. With growing concern over Chinese and Russian global influence, some Members have expressed concern over external influence in the Western Balkans region—including North Macedonia. Finally, some observers contend that North Macedonia's strong desire for EU and NATO membership serves as a reminder to officials on both sides of the Atlantic of the worth of the transatlantic partnership, particularly at a time when it has grown strained. North Macedonia Foreign Minister Nikola Dimitrov has often remarked that "those on the inside forget how cold it is outside."


U.S. Military Electronic Warfare Program Funding: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary: Congress, in the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act, and the Department of Defense (DOD) has identified electronic warfare (EW) as a critical capability supporting military operations to fulfil the current National Defense Strategy. Collectively, DOD considers procurement appropriations and research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) appropriations as part of its investment accounts. Using programs identified by the EW Executive Commission (EW EXCOM), this report traces funding for three of the military services (Air Force, Army, and Navy) along with several defense agencies (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation, and U.S. Special Operations Command).

Summary: This report compares DOD's funding requests for FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 to assess if DOD seeks to increase the funding of the EW portfolio (by increasing funding), decrease its funding, or keep the portfolio relatively unchanged.

Summary: Insights into EW Program Funding

Summary: This report tracks DOD funding requests for approximately 65 research and develop program elements and 30 procurement line items across FY2019 and FY2021. Reviewing these three fiscal years request allows for comparisons across the EW portfolio and provides insights into how EW was prioritized relative to the overall DOD budget. In addition to tracking funding requests in each of the respective fiscal years and identifying what Congress appropriated in FY2019 and FY2020, this report looks at the future years defense program (FYDP) to identify potential trends in the EW portfolio.

Summary: This report looks at the combination of the procurement and RDT&E budget requests to provide a comprehensive, unclassified overview of the total EW program requests within DOD. DOD requested at least $10.1 billion in FY2019, $10.2 billion in FY2020, and $9.7 billion in FY2021 for EW, an amount analogous to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program ($10.7 billion in FY2019) or a Ford-class aircraft carrier ($12.5 billion in total ship-building procurement). Based on statements by several senior defense officials and the conclusions of the National Defense Strategy Commission, it could be expected that DOD is likely to substantially increase funding for EW programs. CRS assesses that DOD requested 11.5% more funding for EW RDT&E in FY2021 than what was projected in the FY2019 budget, but 1.7% less than what was projected in the FY2020 budget. Comparing the procurement budget, the FY2021 request seeks to increase funding by 2.2% compared to FY2019 projections, but decrease funding by 10.3% compared to what was projected in the FY2020 request. From a portfolio perspective, CRS assesses that the Administration projects $51.7 billion over the FY2021 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), $259 million less than the FY2020 FYDP, but $4.5 billion more than the FY2019 FYDP. Overall, it appears the Administration is prioritizing research and development for EW programs, while decreasing procurement, which aligns with the overall FY2021 DOD budget request.

Summary: Potential Issues for Congress

Summary: Based on this analysis, this report identifies three potential issues for Congress

Summary: Is DOD appropriately funding the EW portfolio? How does DOD use appropriated funds for EW programs? Is DOD potentially buying new capabilities with research and development funds, when it should use procurement funding? Does DOD understand what it is developing and procuring within the EW portfolio?

Congress has shown an interest in the Department of Defense's (DOD's) electronic warfare (EW) portfolio, requiring an independent assessment of EW plans and programs in the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This report addresses U.S. military EW funding across research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement appropriations. Using the FY2019 through FY2021 budget request documents, this analysis compares funding profiles between fiscal years, as well as projected funding across the future years defense program (FYDP). Using unclassified sources, CRS estimates that DOD seeks to invest approximately $9.7 billion in FY2021 funding for EW programs. Discussion of specific EW-related programs, as well as an overview of electronic warfare, are outside the scope of this report.

The following analysis looks at EW funding identified by the DOD's EW Executive Commission (EW EXCOM). The EW EXCOM identified a series of RDT&E program elements from three of the military services (Air Force, Army and Navy), as well as several defense agencies (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation, and U.S. Special Operations Command). Using the program elements identified, this analysis extrapolates procurement funding to provide an overview of DOD investments in electronic warfare in FY2019 and FY2020 and requested investments in FY2021.

EW in Support of the National Defense Strategy

Over the past two decades, China and Russia have seen U.S. military command and control, intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance (C2ISR) networks as a critical capability that they must develop capabilities against which to effectively compete. Both countries, as a result, have invested heavily in EW-related systems. According to one analyst, the Russian military views electronic warfare as a "type of armed struggle using electronic means against enemy C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers] to 'change the quality of information,' or using electronic means against various assets to change the condition of the operational environment." Similarly, China has developed sophisticated EW capabilities to disrupt and deny adversary access to command and control systemsâparticularly space-based systems. Not only has the Chinese military been developing new systems, but it routinely exercises with them. In its most recent annual report to Congress, DOD documented at least four major exercises the People's Liberation Army used to test and demonstrate their capabilities.

The National Defense Strategy Commission , an independent Congressional commission charged with evaluating the DOD's National Defense Strategy, identified EW as a critical capability to achieve the goals of the National Defense Strategy. Similarly, in its FY2019 through FY202 1 Defense Budget Overview request documents, DOD identified EW as a priority to improve platform and network survivability; provide advanced jamming techniques to disrupt radars, communications, and command and control systems; and provide measures to defend the space domain and maintain power projection forces.

The Executive Branch and the Congress have placed a higher priority on EW programs in recent years. In 2015, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established the EW EXCOM âco-chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD A&S) and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffâto identify emerging EW technologies. The FY2017 NDAA required the EW EXCOM to develop an EW Strategy. In its strategy, the EW EXCOM identified program elements and projects with EW facets in each of the services' and Defense-wide Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriations. It did not, however, identify procurement lines due to complexity and classification issues . Furthermore, some program elements the EXCOM identified might not clearly refer to EW capabilities, like DARPA's Electronics Technology. Other program elements that support EW operations, however, such as the Navy's E-2D Hawkeye, are not included in the EXCOM's program list.

With these methodological limitations, this report treats the EW EXCOM's list of 65 program elements and projects as encompassing DOD EW programs. The following analysis compares the FY2019 budget request for these programs with the FY2020 and FY2021 requests. The analysis includes funding for the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), and Special Operations Command (SOCOM), using program elements identified by EXCOM in its strategy document, which are aggregated at the department or agency level. The FY2021 request includes Space Force programs, which had been part of the Air Force request in prior years.

Though the EW EXCOM did not identify EW procurement programs, DOD procurement justification documents (P-40s) identify related research and development program elements. Using the Defense Technical Information Center investment budget search tool, this analysis identified the associated EW procurement programsâ28 in FY2019, 36 in FY2020, and 33 in FY2021. Some research and development effortsâsuch as the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet and MQ-9 Reaper droneâdid not differentiate funding for EW-specific procurement and therefore included procurement for aircraft. These procurements were excluded so as not to artificially inflate the funding profile. Based on the RDT&E profiles and program element searches, CRS did not identify DISA, Joint Staff, OSD, and DARPA programs with procurement appropriations.

DOD has stated that it has prioritized EW funding above other programs. This report compares funding requests between the three fiscal years to assess if DOD seeks to increase funding of the EW portfolio (by increasing funding), decrease funding, or keep the portfolio relatively unchanged. To assess these changes, the percentage change from FY2019 to FY2020 is calculated for each appropriations category, and then compared to an overall DOD percentage change.

Table 1 , above, provides an overview of the FY2019 EW RDT&E funding request, FY2019-enacted funding, and projected funding for EW program elements in each of the departments and agencies. The FY2019 request serves as a baseline to compare how DOD changed its funding priorities for FY2020. Of note, DOD requested $5.53 billion in EW RDT&E for FY2019 and planned on spending approximately $24.5 billion across the FYDP. The Navy requested the most funding in FY2019 ($2.44 billion), followed by the Air Force ($1.14 billion), the Army ($859.7 million), DARPA ($740 million), and other organizations ($341 million). EW funding was anticipated to peak in FY2019 then curtail through FY2022, followed by a slight increase in FY2023.

Figure 1 , above, shows the difference between the Administration's FY2019 DOD request and the enacted amount of EW RDT&E. DOD requested a total of approximately $5.5 billion in FY2019; Congress enacted approximately $5.8 billion, $263 million above the requested amount. Of particular note, OSD OT&E received additional funding for subsequent testing. The largest increases between the FY2019 request and enacted levels were for "Other" agenciesâprimarily Operational Test and Evaluationâand the Army. The Navy and DARPA saw slight decreases from their requested levels.

Table 2 provides the FY2020 request and projected future year funding levels for EW RDT&E appropriations in DOD's FY2020 budget request. Of particular note, the Administration's DOD budget requested $504 million in additional RDT&E funding for FY2020 compared with the FY2019 request. While it would follow a trend line similar to FY2019's projection, DOD's plan adds additional money to EW capabilities in each of the out-years of the FYDP. This increase can primarily be attributed to the Navy's start of the Next Generation Jammer-Low Band program, as well as the Army's renewed focus on EW capabilities.

Figure 2 provides a comparison between requested and appropriated amounts by military department for FY2020. There was an overall increase in $140 million in EW research and development efforts. The Air Force received approximately $139 million in additional funding compared to the requested amount, with the largest increases for Advanced Aerospace Sensor Technologies and EW Quick Reaction Capabilities. The Navy received an additional $58 million for EW research and development efforts, including more funding for the F/A-18 Infrared Search and Track development and Shipboard Information Warfare Exploitation programs. These increases were partially offset by a $31 million reduction in DARPA funding for EW research and development and a $26 million reduction in Army funding for such efforts. DARPA programs all saw relatively small decreases in funding. Army funding decreases included reductions to assured Precision, Navigation and Timing equipment development.

The FY2021 RDT&E request includes approximately $5.7 billion across all military departments and agencies. The Navy requested the most, following a similar trend in FY2019 and FY2020. The Army requested the second most, replacing the Air Force in prior years. Table 3 provides an overview of the FY2021 request.

The Army increased EW RDT&E funding by $305 million when comparing what was projected from the FY2020 request and what was requested in FY2021. The Air Force experienced the most changes, restructuring several program elements and transferring others to the Space Force. The top three programs that received increased funding include (1) the Army's Rapid Capability Development and Maturation program (increased by $247 million compared to the FY2020 projection for FY2021), (2) the F/A-18 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) development (increased $168 million), and (3) the Eagle Passive Active Warning System (increased by $146 million). Programs that saw the largest reductions include the B-2 Defensive Management System (reduced by $164 million), DARPA's Sensors and Processing Systems program (reduced by $142 million), and the Space Force's Protected Tactical Satellite Communications (reduced $48 million).

FY2019 Request Through FY2021 Request RDT&E Funding Comparison

CRS assesses that the FY2021 request includes 93 program elements associated with electronic warfare and 157 related projects. This represents a slight increase from previous years, partly as a result of the newly established Space Force, the Air Force restructuring research projects, and the Army's restructuring of programs. Figure 3 depicts funding projections from the FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 requests. The FY2021 request aligns closely with the FY2020 request, reducing funding by $104 million from projections in FY2020. The FY2021 request projects $25.6 billion over five years; FY2019 projected $24.6 billion over the FYDP, FY2020 similarly projected $25.6 billion.

DOD has increased planned EW RDT&E funding from $4.9 billion in its FY2019 request to $5.6 billion in its FY2020 request, then down to $5.5 billion in the FY2021 request. The FY2021 request represents an 11.7% increase in funding when compared to FY2019 projections, but a 1.7% decrease from the projected funding from FY2020 request. The overall change from FY2019 to FY2021 (11.7%) is double the requested 4.9% increase in overall DOD funding from FY2019 to FY2020.

Table 4 , above, provides an overview of the FY2019 EW procurement request along with enacted procurement appropriations. Overall, the Administration requested $4.55 billion for EW-related procurement activities. The Navy requested the most ($2.43 billion), followed by the Air Force ($919 million) and the Army ($743 million). Funding was projected to decline through FY2021 before increasing in FY2022 and FY2023, as a result of the first increment of the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) entering production. The NGJ is a series of jamming pods designed to disrupt air defense radars and comminutions, replacing the Vietnam-era ALQ-99 jammers.

Congress added $431 million in appropriations, representing a 9.5% increase over what the Administration requested. Figure 4 provides the differences between what was requested versus enacted. Of note, the Air Force received an additional $444 million over the requested amount due to Congress funding an additional EC-37B aircraftâwhich is designed to jam air defense radars and command and control systemsâas well as increases to combat training ranges and simulations and adjustments to the F-15 defensive systems. The Navy and SOCOM saw minor decreases in appropriations.

The Administration requested $4.56 billion in EW procurement for FY2020, adding an additional $303 million compared to what was planned in FY2019. Table 5 provides an overview of the overall FY2020 request. The Navy again requested the largest amount ($2.44 billion), followed by the Air Force ($1.21 billion) and the Army ($574 million). The Air Force's request increased the most (by $306 million) compared with what had been planned for FY2020 in the previous FY2019 request, followed by the Army (by $224 million). This requested increase can be partially attributed to the Army starting a new program for Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing and the Air Force's transition of the E-11 Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) to a program of record and increases to E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) modifications.

Procurement for EW equipment was $4.2 billion. The Navy and the Air Force requested the largest proportions of the request, following similar trends identified in FY2019 and FY2020. New to the FY2021 request was funding for the Space Forceâthe newest military service and authorized in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 116-92 ). Table 6 provides an overview of the FY2021 procurement request. Procurement in FY2021 is the lowest of the three fiscal years tracked in this report, only slightly higher than funding levels projected from the FY2019 request.

There are a few trends to highlight from the FY2021 request. First, Navy procurement saw the largest decreases. The primary programs with significant reductions include MQ-4 Triton procurement (reduced $543 million compared to projections for FY2021 from the FY2020 request), MQ-4 Triton procurement (reduced $373 million), and AN/ALQ-32s (reduced $159 million). Procurement for Assured Precision Navigation, and Timing (PNT) equipment (increased $93 million), Patriot Modifications (increased $85 million), and the Integrated Fire Protection (IFPC) Family of Systems (increased $46 million) received the largest increases compared to the FY2020 request. The funding data suggest the Navy is reevaluating its EW programs, particularly for the surface fleet.

FY2019 Request through FY2021 Request Procurement Funding Comparison

The FY2021 request included approximately $3.7 billion to procure electronic warfare capabilities. This represents a 22.5% reduction in procurement funding compared to what was projected for FY2021 in the FY2020 request ($4.8 billion). The FY2021 FYDP projects $22.8 billion in funding over the next five years; this is compared to the FY2019 FYDP, which projected $22.5 billion, and the FY2020 FYDP, which projected $26.3 billion. Figure 5 depicts each of the FYDPs as a comparison.

Figure 5 illustrates the differences between the Administration's plans for EW procurement from FY2019 to FY2021. The FY2020 request added an additional $5.23 billion across the FYDP compared with the FY2019 FYDP. FY2021 added $94 million compared to the FY2019 request, but reduced procurement by $491 million compared to projections from the FY2020 request. The Navy observed the largest decrease in procurement funding, resulting in a reduction of $489 million. The Air Force saw a reduction of $81 million as well, primarily due to the introduction of the Space Force. The Army saw the largest increase, approximately $53 million.

It might be argued that DOD is making EW procurement a priority, which is aligned with the strategic direction in the National Defense Strategy and recommendations by the National Defense Strategy Commission. DOD requested an additional 4.9% increase in funding compared to what it projected in FY2019. EW procurement, however, increased by 7.1% from the FY2019 request compared to what was requested in FY2020âa 2.2% increase over the DOD request.

Comparison of RDT&E and Procurement Funding

Figure 6 , above, shows the relationship between RDT&E and procurement. Some might be concerned looking exclusively at the planned funding levels for RDT&E since this appropriation declines over the FYDP. However, several programs currently receiving RDT&E fundingâsuch as the NGJ and the E-11 BACNâtransition from being developmental programs to fielded systems. Also of note, it appears that the Administration may have changed its plans on fielding new programs. Based on funding projections the Administration plans on accelerating the Next Generation Jammer quicker than previously anticipated. In addition, it appears the Administration decided to accelerate the F-15 electronic warfare systems (F-15 EPAWS). The increase in planned procurement funding in FY2020 is particularly significant compared to the planned funding profile in FY2019.

Combining both appropriations, DOD requested an additional $662.5 million for EW in FY2021 compared to what it had initially projected in the FY2019 request; however, the FY2021 request is $591.3 million lower than had been projected from the FY2020 request. This represents a 7.3% increase in the portfolio from FY2019 projections but a 5.7% decrease compared to projections from the FY2020 projections.

One potential issue for Congress is the overall funding level for EW programs. DOD requested approximately $9.7 billion dollars in FY2021 for the EW portfolio, based on unclassified budget request documents. Historically, individual EW programs have not been generally seen as large enough for in-depth congressional scrutiny; however, combined, these programs represent funding levels nearly as much as an aircraft carrier ($12.5 billion in total procurement for CVN-80) or the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement ($10.7 billion in FY2019). Congress may ask whether $10.2 billion is sufficient for DOD to execute its missions, or, conversely, whether this funding level is too much. Second, Congress may ask whether each of the military services is funding unique programs, or whether there are overlapping programs that provide similar capabilities. To understand these questions, Congress may consider a historical perspective on how much the DOD allocated for EW to compare if current funding exceeds or under resources the portfolio. A second metric Congress may potentially consider using is the ratio of spending for procurement and RDT&E appropriations to understand where in the lifecycle EW programs currently are, and if the current portfolio is an anomaly.

Many EW programs are highly classified due to their close relationship with intelligence and command and control programs. As a result, there is potentially insufficient unclassified information to assess how much DOD is currently spending on EW. This limitation of data presents a potential oversight issue for Congress.

Some have argued that DOD has not adequately prioritized EW over the past several years. The budget projections described above may support the argument that DOD is now prioritizing investment in EW funding. Congress may consider whether DOD uses research and development funding to procure new electronic components. Congress might consider requiring DOD to report all EW-related funding for procurements, as well as ensuring that DOD is not procuring new or advanced electronics through other appropriations.

The EW EXCOM has stated that many procurement programs have EW-related spending, and it is difficult and complex to differentiate among them . As a result, this report does not include all EW-related procurement programs, and therefore does not account for all EW funding. If Congress maintains interest in EW procurement, it may consider requiring DOD to report all EW-related procurement programs, as well as to break out specific EW-related initiatives within a larger procurement program.

Congress has shown an interest in developing a comprehensive assessment of EW plans and programs across each of the DOD services and agencies. The FY2019 NDAA ( P.L. 115-232 ) required DOD to contract with a scientific organization to perform an independent assessment of DOD-related EW plans and programs. According to the legislation, this assessment identified U.S. programs, orders of battle and doctrine; analyze adversary programs, orders of battle and doctrine; and make recommendations for how the U.S. military might counteract adversary plans and programs. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments delivered the NDAA mandated study in December 2019; however, the FY2020 NDAA required a similar study to be performed.

In addition to requesting an independent assessment of EW programs and plans, the FY2019 NDAA required DOD to update its Electronic Warfare Strategy from 2017 and submit it to Congress. Congress has expressed concern that DOD has not synchronized its efforts to ensure its dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum. For DOD to remain competitive, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense and a senior designated official to develop a process and procedure to integrate and enhance EW mission areas across DOD (i.e., to ensure each of the services cooperates and is integrated in the Joint force, as opposed to having service-specific solutions). This section of the NDAA requires DOD to develop a "defense-wide strategy, planning, and budgeting [process and procedures] with respect to conduct of such operations [electronic attack] by the Department, including activities conducted to counter and deter such operations by malign actors." The strategy was delivered in 2019; however, much of the detail of this particular strategy is classified.