Friday, May 25, 2012


Features

EU Goes Back To Drawing Board In South Caucasus

EU monitors near the cease-fire line between Georgia and Russian forces in South Ossetia. Georgian attempts to raise its profile in the EU are seen to have failed.
TEXT SIZE - +
By Ahto Lobjakas
BRUSSELS -- The European Union is mulling a new strategy for the South Caucasus. When they meet in Brussels on September 14, EU foreign ministers are expected to launch a debate on how to bring the bloc's outreach to the region up to date.

Implicit in the new strategy debate on the South Caucasus is an admission by the EU that both the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and Eastern Partnership (EP) outreach schemes have failed to provide a clear and durable blueprint for the EU's relations with its neighbors.

EU officials familiar with recent debates within the bloc say its current Swedish presidency has been asked to draw up a guidance document for an in-depth review of the aims of EU cooperation with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.

The first outlines that have emerged suggest the new strategy will not represent a radical departure from the existing thrust of main EU policies. The EU's goal will remain bringing the three countries as closely in line with its laws and policies as possible.

The EU recognizes that the South Caucasus is gaining in importance in terms of regional stability, energy, and trade. All three countries are being offered association agreements which could lead to free trade and visa liberalization. EU membership, as before, is not on offer.

The three principles that officials in Brussels say will underlie future relations between the EU and the South Caucasus -- inclusiveness, differentiation, and conditionality -- are similarly modest in scope. Every country interested in cooperation must be given the chance, no one can hold anyone else back, and progress will depend on results.

Georgia Falls Back

What is new is the EU's return to a regional focus in its thinking. The goals of EU outreach and the offer it makes must be the same for all three countries, officials say.

This spells a quiet end to Georgia's ambitions to elevate itself to a status on par with Ukraine. Instead, it's placed firmly in the same bracket with Armenia and Azerbaijan, neither of which countries has any aspirations to join the EU -- or NATO -- in the foreseeable future. The two latter countries are primarily interested in the EU as a counterweight to Russia, whose interests in the region both recognise.

The dry language of EU diplomats confirms a shift of mood more than a few months old. Georgia's demotion to just another state in the Caucasus does not represent so much a failure of the EU -- which has always pursued a highly cautious "wait and see" policy toward Georgia. It is more a reflection of a failure by Tbilisi to convince the EU that the risks inherent in recognizing its ambitions are worth taking.

The war with Russia in August 2008 and the violent standoffs with the opposition that preceded and followed the conflict have seen President Mikheil Saakashvili's political stock plummet drastically within the EU. Diplomats say the Georgian leader now struggles to secure invitations to visit even the friendliest of EU capitals.

One indirect, but doubtless painfully felt, indication of the change in Georgia's fortunes is the reported insistence by the European Commission ahead of the ministers' debate on September 14 that the South Caucasus countries must "earn" closer ties with the EU by showing sufficient political will.

Rewarding them with quick, unearned advances, the commission warned, would "devalue" the achievements of the other Eastern Partnership countries.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 2
    Next 
by: Vakhtang
September 10, 2009 14:42
I am very disappointed that the EU is taking this regional stance, but this is the response that Saakashvili has earned.

by: Anna
September 10, 2009 19:10
That’s nonsense. There is nothing new in Europe’s regional approach to South Caucasus. Georgia always had been part of that region together with Armenia and Azerbaijan, it does not mean Georgia has been demoted in any way. How exactly is Ukraine ahead of Georgia in the process of integration with the West? Ukraine received no more encouragement for its membership of the EU and NATO than Georgia did, in this respect the Ukraine’s status is no different from Georgia’s.

The Georgian Government is not the only party to take blame for a “violent stand off with the opposition“, the opposition too should take their share of responsibility for the political excesses and extremism exhibited by some opposition politicians that caused the stand off.

No other political leader in Georgia or elsewhere in former soviet space tried to bring its country close to the West as vigorously as Mikheil Saakashvili did, that’s why Russia is so determined to engineer a regime change in Georgia. Russians have gone to great lengths to demonise Mr Saakashvili. If he really is struggling to secure invitation from his Western “friends”, then it simply shows that the EU has given in to Russian pressure.

The August 08 war was planned and executed by Russia. By trying to put blame on Georgia Europe is basically surrendering to Russian bullying. It is not the first time the West has betrayed small, vulnerable countries in the periphery of Europe. Remember inter-war Europe? Yalta Agreement? Etc. things might be different now, but not much different.

Most political observers admit that the West’s response to Russian aggression against Georgia was rather weak; I would say it was cowardly. It is not Georgia’s failure; it is the failure of the West, including both the EU and USA.

by: Dimitri
September 10, 2009 21:04
Interesting analyst. While I agree that all three of the Caucuses states need to be given equal opportunity, and engagement. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are very different countries. Georgia will always gravitate towards the west, Armenia will always Gravitate towards Russia, and Azerbaijan with it's Oil revenue can Play Both sides, in perusing it's national Interests. Georgia will remain the most progressive of the three states to seek democratic reform, and it's much further along that path, it's the only place where Europe can have a foothold in the caucuses to engage the entire region. If the Russians are allowed to undermine the Georgian state, the entire region will be lost to Europe.

by: Angelina
September 11, 2009 13:26
I agree with "Anna".

Also, I think people should be careful of these articles which cites unnamed 'diplomats' or 'officials' (if they're real at all) as sources.
In this way, the 'sources' can influence the media to create an opinion that can legitimize their own countries positions on certain issues.
They then use the talk about a supposedly "shift of mood" to push forward a certain view or agenda.


It also seems the opposition served their purpose ("violent standoffs with the opposition" are cited as reasons/examples) for those who would like to see exactly this scenario of Georgia being "placed firmly in the same bracket with Armenia and Azerbaijan, neither of which countries has any aspirations to join the EU -- or NATO -- in the foreseeable future".

It's public knowledge that Russia and its sympathizers (energy/business interests) in the EU are against Georgia joining the EU and NATO, and Russia has demonstrated it would do anything (including using military force) to stop that.

by: Benjamin from: Cordoba
September 11, 2009 15:58
Old tune. It is very sad to see EU hiding his head into the sand instead of facing the challenge. Even more sad, because it becomes a habit already. Does anyone think Georgians prefer having USA main partner than EU? Of course not, but look at EU: whenever needed, is "à côté de la plaque".
It is simply hilarious to see EU's "analysis" and common approach towards three Caucasian countries, so manifestly different, not only by historical path followed (language, culture, religion) but today's degree of maturity, aspirations and geopolitical interests. It's just unbelievable to see how EU again totally misses the point.

By the way, it is not new. When Georgia was seeking Europe's help to avoid asking protectorate to Tzar's Russia, Europe failed. When in 1990's Russia (let's name the things with their names, at least now it is clear, right?) blasted the region with "ethnic" conflicts - Europe comfortably hid behind "Zone of Russian influence". Moreover, when in Spring 2008 France and Germany bent under Putin's pressure and refused to grant MAP (ultra-important step to get closer to NATO ) to Ukraine and Georgia, they sent a signal to Moscow that later had to destabilize these states until next NATO summit. We know what happened then, right? Thousands of Soviet soldiers back to Georgia and a little panic over the freezing Europe...

And let me be clear: although Governments may shape nation's fate, they never are the nations themselves. Sakashwili can be a average clown(i.e. is Berlusconi not?), but how stupid would it be to base EU's long-term agenda on such elements!

P.S. Go, Mme Merkel, lobby Sberbank and Gazprom, sell Opel to Russians. Bravo! Amazing strategic vision!

by: Dan McVerry from: Seattle
September 11, 2009 17:01
Anna,
Good article and analysis. I’ve worked in all those 3 countries. I can see how Georgia and Armenia belong to the European family but I’m less inclined to say the same about Azerbaijan. I can see that there’s a grave misconception about Armenia being permanently pro-Russia, it’s not so. The only reason Armenians remain Pro-Russia is the perceived security that Russia provides for Armenia. Once, EU and NATO provide an unambiguous security, Armenians will doubtlessly switch to the NATO camp. I believe that the best option going forward would be to encourage Armenia and Georgia to form a mini BENLUX area; they are the closest in terms of human development, culture and European values. Azerbaijan has a lot of work to do to even comply with loosest definition of a democratic country. Sorry, I cannot see Azerbaijan as European, it’s culturally and profoundly different and it will remain so. Once Armenia/Georgia are firmly in European camp, Azerbaijan will have to switch sides too since it’s a landlocked country. Azerbaijan, being a rich country will always be less responsive to Europe, where Georgia and Armenia are genuinely interested in getting closer to EU. To get this project off the ground, EU must heavily invest in Georgia and Armenia and to lift them closer to its orbit. Current lukewarm attitude will not yield results. Armenia, alone, needs significant security guarantees and investment to switch camps. Food for thought.

by: Rasto from: London
September 14, 2009 14:01
to Dan McVerry
Do you really believe that Russians with key Army bases in Armenia and 70 % of investments there are going to allow this poor country to switch to EU and NATO? Look what have they done to pro-western Georgia for their NATO/EU Aspirations..

by: RD
September 14, 2009 16:44
On the surface, it may seem Armenia is not interested in joining the EU or NATO. However, as they say, the devil is in the details. Armenia could not join the EU even if it explicitly wanted to. Georgia's bid to join NATO can be used as precedence. Furthermore, when you have a land locked country such as Armenia that has to depend on Russia for security and for its economy, joining NATO can be quite difficult. As the proverb says; "you can't spit in the well you drink from". I do have a problem seeing the EU genuinely extend its arms to Azerbaijan. It is no secret that no majority EU country would like to see Turkey or Azerbaijan in the EU. Polls in France, Austria, Greece and Germany do not see Turkey or Turkic people as sharing European values and culture.

by: Alex
September 15, 2009 14:12
In the end it does not matter what Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaidjan decide, or really want as states, the sad reality is that major powers need to come to some agreement for this area.

by: Orhan ertugruloglu from: the Netherlands
September 17, 2009 05:28
Normalization talks between Turkey and Armenis have worried Georgia. The Georgian government wants the border between Turkey and Armenia to stay closed. Along with Iran, Georgia is a major transit route for Armenian foreign trade to outside world. 70% of Armenian foreign trade takes place via Georgia. So Georgia wants the border between Turkey and Armenia to remain closed. Georgia fears losing its key role -and political leverage-in Armenian trade relations.Due to Karabakh syndrome the Armenian minority in Georgia's Samtskhe-Javakheti region would eventually demand unification with Armenia. Ethnic Armenians are in majority in this region forming 54 % of the population. They are deprived of their cultural and religious rights. Georgia's another fear is to see Armenia as an alternative route for energy pipe lines. The closest land routes to and from Central Asian and Azerbaijani oil and natural gas resoruces run through Armenia. The Karabakh syndrome of Ethnic Armenians in the southern Georgian region of Samstskhe-Javakheti region may lead to a possible military confrontation in Caucasusu in the near future.
Comments page of 2
    Next 

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Ukraine Activists Protest Language Law

Latest Comment (1 total)

Eugenio: Ukrainian MPs are really taking their work much more seriously than those of ... More

Beaten Ukrainian Gay Activist Unbowed

Latest Comment (3 total)

David: Beating any minority social group only strengthens their resolve and moral high ground. ... More

Dolphin Deaths Alarm Black Sea Ecologists

Latest Comment (1 total)

John Harduny: Marine mammals often die in places with new geophysical exploration activity tied to ... More