October 7, 2011

The meeting in late September of the member states of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) project(initiated by Poland and Sweden and targeting six post-Soviet states – Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) showed that Warsaw is still interested in the Euro-Atlantic integration of these countries, especially of the first three ones.

One of the summit's highlights was a declaration condemning the violation of human rights in Belarus, signed only by the presidents and prime ministers of the EU countries. The leaders of the post-Soviet republics would not put their signatures below the document. So, the delegates failed to agree on the Belorussian issue. However, Polish pro-government experts do not seem to admit the failure since they believe that the interest demonstrated towards the EaP summit in Brussels proves that Europe 'thinks Polish', and the relations between Poland and Germany, the recognized leader of the EU, are quite productive. Hosting the EaP summit, Poland, which also currently presides in the EU, was trying to speak on behalf of the entire Europe. Brussels has already announced its intention to invest 600 million euros in the EaP project before 2013, but this sum is obviously too small for six member states. Even in case the EU invests up to 2 billion euros by the year 2014 (and this is what we read in the summit's declaration), it is still not so much as it may seem.

The fact that the leaders of the post-Soviet republics did not sign the declaration condemning the violation of human rights in Belarus, came as no surprise. Each of them had reasons for not doing so.

The 2008 presidential elections in Azerbaijan, which allowed the then leader Ilkham Aliyev remain in office, provoked criticism from the OSCE. However, Baku has oil and gas it can always use to gain favor of the West, that is why Mr. Aliyev, despite all criticism, continues the negotiations with Brussels and Washington. If he had signed the declaration on Belarus, he would have inevitably drawn criticism on himself amid violations which took place during the presidential elections in his Azerbaijan.

The Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has even fewer reasons to criticize Belarus. Minsk did not recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, while the contacts between Belarus and Georgia are far more stable that those between Moscow and Tbilisi. Now that the opposition in Georgia complains about dictatorship policies of the 'main democrat of the Caucasus', it would not have been a wise decision for Saakashvili to criticize Lukashenko for the way he treats his opponents. Armenia and Moldova did not sign the declaration for similar reasons.

Unlike his counterparts, Ukraine’s leader Viktor Yanukovich has no conflicts with the international community since his victory at the 2010 presidential elections was accepted abroad. However, he also did not put his signature below the declaration. Europe is now concerned over Yulia Timoshenko and her circle. Brussels wants to see Ukraine politically diverse, it wants to choose from different political parties, depending on the interests it pursues there. Mr. Yanukovich turned to be among the most successful participants of the EaP summit: he was told that the talks on the EU-Ukraine Association agreement would be completed by the end of the year, and that a visa-free travel between the countries would not depend on politics. It means that Brussels has decided to turn a blind eye on some violations in Ukraine in order to keep Yanukovich under the thumb.

These are major difficulties now faced by the EaP:

1) There is a huge gap between political and economic standards of the EU and those in the post-Soviet countries. The European and the post-Soviet members of the Eastern Partnership have never shared a common political stage, their geopolitical interests differ, too. Some members of the EaP prefer not to join any large-scale projects and cooperate with Brussels on their own. Ukraine is among them, independently making its way to the European market.

2) The EaP still lacks overwhelming support from the EU. Germany, Italy and France are focusing on cooperation with Moscow and are not interested in Poland`s initiative to ensure stability on its eastern borders. However, Berlin is being quite active about the EaP for it is interested in making the French project of the Mediterranean union more neutral. In case of success France would become a leading country in the Mediterranean. Not being a Mediterranean state, Germany can`t seek membership in the Mediterranean union, and has to admit that Paris is a key mediator between the continental Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as with North Africa and the Middle East. Participation in the EaP allows Berlin not remain diplomatically isolated. On the one hand, Germany and Russia have been involved in implementation of promising economic projects. On the other hand, German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants more pressure on Belarus. However, this initiative is protested by Lithuania, which finds it more effective to attract Belarus to join the EU economic programs. Despite all criticism, Vilnius and Minsk continue productive economic cooperation. Lithuania`s President Dalia Grybauskaitė said she regretted that there was no delegation from Belarus present at the summit. Minsk boycotted the meeting for its obvious anti-Belorussian rethoric, and Brussels decided to invite Warsaw to represent the Belorussian opposition.

3) Tbilisi and Chisinau, the most anti-Russian members of the EaP, are now facing many financial and political challenges. Pledging during the summit to establish a free trade zone, both Moldova and Georgia yet have not achieved any success in fighting poverty in their countries. No success have they made trying to deal with the opposition. The 2008 war conflict with Russia is still echoing in Georgia, which will keep Tbilisi in the outskirts of the EaP, with main focus made by the EU on Moldova. Strained relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan make the situation in the EaP even more complicated.

It is necessary to be aware that the EaP project shows what interests the EU has in its strategically important eastern areas. In fact, human rights rhetoric is used simply to conceal geopolitical interests. Actually, the EaP project is aimed at breaking long cultural and historical traditions which used to unite Russia and it’s the former Soviet republics. The aim is also to let the West expand its military presence in the region, an initiative also launched by Poland…

The summit in Warsaw was not a failure. Neither it marked any breakthrough in Europe`s eastern policies, despite all efforts made by Poland. To breath new life into the EaP project, Warsaw should have better focused on strategic cooperation with the post-Soviet states, which means revising relations with some member states, as well as granting certain economic privileges to the most active participants. And what is even more important- a new idea of Europe`s evolution. However, nothing of the kind was done.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Tags:

Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus European Union Georgia Moldova Poland Ukraine

Print this article

Shaky prospects for the Eastern Partnership

The meeting in late September of the member states of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) project(initiated by Poland and Sweden and targeting six post-Soviet states – Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) showed that Warsaw is still interested in the Euro-Atlantic integration of these countries, especially of the first three ones.

One of the summit's highlights was a declaration condemning the violation of human rights in Belarus, signed only by the presidents and prime ministers of the EU countries. The leaders of the post-Soviet republics would not put their signatures below the document. So, the delegates failed to agree on the Belorussian issue. However, Polish pro-government experts do not seem to admit the failure since they believe that the interest demonstrated towards the EaP summit in Brussels proves that Europe 'thinks Polish', and the relations between Poland and Germany, the recognized leader of the EU, are quite productive. Hosting the EaP summit, Poland, which also currently presides in the EU, was trying to speak on behalf of the entire Europe. Brussels has already announced its intention to invest 600 million euros in the EaP project before 2013, but this sum is obviously too small for six member states. Even in case the EU invests up to 2 billion euros by the year 2014 (and this is what we read in the summit's declaration), it is still not so much as it may seem.

The fact that the leaders of the post-Soviet republics did not sign the declaration condemning the violation of human rights in Belarus, came as no surprise. Each of them had reasons for not doing so.

The 2008 presidential elections in Azerbaijan, which allowed the then leader Ilkham Aliyev remain in office, provoked criticism from the OSCE. However, Baku has oil and gas it can always use to gain favor of the West, that is why Mr. Aliyev, despite all criticism, continues the negotiations with Brussels and Washington. If he had signed the declaration on Belarus, he would have inevitably drawn criticism on himself amid violations which took place during the presidential elections in his Azerbaijan.

The Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has even fewer reasons to criticize Belarus. Minsk did not recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, while the contacts between Belarus and Georgia are far more stable that those between Moscow and Tbilisi. Now that the opposition in Georgia complains about dictatorship policies of the 'main democrat of the Caucasus', it would not have been a wise decision for Saakashvili to criticize Lukashenko for the way he treats his opponents. Armenia and Moldova did not sign the declaration for similar reasons.

Unlike his counterparts, Ukraine’s leader Viktor Yanukovich has no conflicts with the international community since his victory at the 2010 presidential elections was accepted abroad. However, he also did not put his signature below the declaration. Europe is now concerned over Yulia Timoshenko and her circle. Brussels wants to see Ukraine politically diverse, it wants to choose from different political parties, depending on the interests it pursues there. Mr. Yanukovich turned to be among the most successful participants of the EaP summit: he was told that the talks on the EU-Ukraine Association agreement would be completed by the end of the year, and that a visa-free travel between the countries would not depend on politics. It means that Brussels has decided to turn a blind eye on some violations in Ukraine in order to keep Yanukovich under the thumb.

These are major difficulties now faced by the EaP:

1) There is a huge gap between political and economic standards of the EU and those in the post-Soviet countries. The European and the post-Soviet members of the Eastern Partnership have never shared a common political stage, their geopolitical interests differ, too. Some members of the EaP prefer not to join any large-scale projects and cooperate with Brussels on their own. Ukraine is among them, independently making its way to the European market.

2) The EaP still lacks overwhelming support from the EU. Germany, Italy and France are focusing on cooperation with Moscow and are not interested in Poland`s initiative to ensure stability on its eastern borders. However, Berlin is being quite active about the EaP for it is interested in making the French project of the Mediterranean union more neutral. In case of success France would become a leading country in the Mediterranean. Not being a Mediterranean state, Germany can`t seek membership in the Mediterranean union, and has to admit that Paris is a key mediator between the continental Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as with North Africa and the Middle East. Participation in the EaP allows Berlin not remain diplomatically isolated. On the one hand, Germany and Russia have been involved in implementation of promising economic projects. On the other hand, German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants more pressure on Belarus. However, this initiative is protested by Lithuania, which finds it more effective to attract Belarus to join the EU economic programs. Despite all criticism, Vilnius and Minsk continue productive economic cooperation. Lithuania`s President Dalia Grybauskaitė said she regretted that there was no delegation from Belarus present at the summit. Minsk boycotted the meeting for its obvious anti-Belorussian rethoric, and Brussels decided to invite Warsaw to represent the Belorussian opposition.

3) Tbilisi and Chisinau, the most anti-Russian members of the EaP, are now facing many financial and political challenges. Pledging during the summit to establish a free trade zone, both Moldova and Georgia yet have not achieved any success in fighting poverty in their countries. No success have they made trying to deal with the opposition. The 2008 war conflict with Russia is still echoing in Georgia, which will keep Tbilisi in the outskirts of the EaP, with main focus made by the EU on Moldova. Strained relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan make the situation in the EaP even more complicated.

It is necessary to be aware that the EaP project shows what interests the EU has in its strategically important eastern areas. In fact, human rights rhetoric is used simply to conceal geopolitical interests. Actually, the EaP project is aimed at breaking long cultural and historical traditions which used to unite Russia and it’s the former Soviet republics. The aim is also to let the West expand its military presence in the region, an initiative also launched by Poland…

The summit in Warsaw was not a failure. Neither it marked any breakthrough in Europe`s eastern policies, despite all efforts made by Poland. To breath new life into the EaP project, Warsaw should have better focused on strategic cooperation with the post-Soviet states, which means revising relations with some member states, as well as granting certain economic privileges to the most active participants. And what is even more important- a new idea of Europe`s evolution. However, nothing of the kind was done.