First Reactions to the EU's Eastern Partnership Report of the Ifri's Tuesday in Brussels on September 15, 2009

Ingmar Oldberg started his presentation by giving a general overview of the Eastern Partnership. He reminded the audience that the Eastern partnership is a Polish/Swedish initiative that was launched in May 2009 during the Czech presidency of the European Council. This programme addresses the EU"s relationships with 6 countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. It is a part of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and has been inspired by the Union for the Mediterranean. Its aim is to promote stability by spreading European values, the rule of law and promoting the free movement of people and goods. Carl Bildt - the Swedish foreign minister - is personally involved in the process and supports EU enlargement. In time, this Eastern Partnership could lead to the abolition of visas within the partner states and between the partner states and the EU, after the fulfilment of certain conditions.

Ingmar Oldberg then outlined the criticisms that have been made of the Eastern Partnership. First, it can be seen as an unnecessary addition to the ENP. Second, some of the countries concerned do not really care about the Eastern Partnership. Ukraine, for example, would content itself with its bilateral relationship with the EU; on first examination the Eastern Partnership does not bring anything new for Ukraine. Furthermore, what it really wants and probably won"t get with the Eastern Partnership is EU membership. Third, there is very little funding available: only 600 millions Euros between 2010 and 2013 to be shared between 6 countries. In a time of financial crisis, it would be unrealistic to expect more. Fourth, the partner states are far from being politically stable: because of the fights between the President and the Prime Minister, the Ukrainian government has been unable to vote any budget, Moldova and Georgia have to face internal conflicts over their borders and in reality Azerbaijan is not democratic at all.In terms of timing, the Eastern Partnership proposal is to be set against the Georgian war in August 2008 and the Ukrainian/Russian gas crisis in January 2009. Although Jose Manuel Barroso - the President of the European Commission - claimed that the Eastern Partnership was not aimed against Russia, Russia was rather upset by the initiative. Furthermore, it is not mentioned by name in the proposal and has no built-in power to influence this partnership. Two countries are particularly worth taking a close look at: Belarus and Ukraine. The president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko is emancipating itself from Russia. For example, it did not recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia"s independence. The EU compromising with Belarus proves Russian point that the EU is not so much about democracy but rather about political gains. As far as Ukraine is concerned, its relationship with Russia has deteriorated because of the successive gas crises, reaching the point where Medvedev has explicitly said that it wished the current Ukrainian President to lose the January elections. Ukraine is very important to the EU because of the potential damage its ongoing disputes with Russia can cause to EU energy security. In August 2009, the EU lent 1.7 billion Euros to Ukraine for the modernisation of its gas network. This move was very badly perceived by Russia. In order to rely less on Ukraine as a transit country, 3 projects have been developed: North Stream, South Stream and Nabucco.

Ingmar Oldberg examined then what the Eastern Partnership has achieved so far. The next meetings will be in October with MEPs, November within a civil society forum and in December to discuss future guidelines. Most likely, the success of the Eastern Partnership will be different across countries according to the partner state"s willingness to participate in the scheme and the success of reforms.

Dominic Fean focussed his presentation on Georgia. Although the ENP was launched in 2003, it included Georgia only in 2006. Georgia affirmed it would fulfil the ENP requirements in 3 years instead of 5. The EU observers are the only ones remaining in Georgia after last August war since the UN"s observer mission has been refused an extension of its mandate. Until the war, the EU"s actions have not been visible. Indeed it was an EU policy to carry out actions through third parties so as not to raise Russian attention. A clear example of this is the EU"s Border Support Team, established in 2005. It replaced an OSCE mission which counted over one hundred staff with just three EU advisors. However, discretion was not the policy of Georgia which made very public efforts to join NATO and recognised the independence of Kosovo. Georgia"s GDP is expected to decrease by 4% in 2009 which is not too bad in comparison with Ukraine, for example, whose GDP will go down by 14% in 2009.

One of the biggest challenges of the Eastern Partnership is for the EU to accept its official aim of being a joint ownership. Furthermore, both member states of the EU and partner states have expressed some reserve regarding the Eastern Partnership. France, Italy and the UK did not send high-level delegations, just like Lukashenko, and Moldova"s President Vladimir Voronin described the Eastern Partnership as “candies”. Dominic Fean emphasised that the EU needs to state clearly that the Eastern Partnership is not aiming at providing a perspective of membership, if this is the case.

Dominic Fean concluded by insisting that, in the case of the Eastern partnership, commitment is more important than content and that the EU has to keep in mind that at least two of the partner states (Georgia and Moldava) still have internal conflicts going on, which will impinge upon their completion of the Eastern Partnership"s goals if left unaddressed.

Questions/Answers

Why does the EU need to eradicate any perspective of EU membership within the Eastern Partnership?What are the motives for the Eastern Partnership? Is it to reinforce Europe between Russia and the US?

Dominic Fean: None of the partner states is near ready to become a member of the EU. This issue of the membership monopolises all the energy and in the mean time nothing is done on the topics that can really make a difference.

If you consider these 6 states as under Russian influence, they will never manage to emancipate themselves.
What is the morality of the EU soft power in Georgia?

Dominic Fean: It is true that we have to look at these 6 countries as independent from Russia. However, it is necessary to take Russia into account in these negotiations since these countries and Russia have a common history, culture and language. A lot of people are not clear about what their identity is but it certainly has some Russian roots.
On the question of morality, despite the cleansing of ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia, it is important to aid post-war demobilisation and disarmament of the population. Failure to make progress in this area will only increase the probability of problems later.

What are the motives for the Eastern Partnership? Is it to reinforce Europe between Russia and the US?

Ingmar Oldberg: Stability is in the interest of everybody.

Can we talk about stability despite the fact that Russia and Europe are so different from each other? How can we overcome the fact that Russia simply doesn"t understand the EU?

Dominic Fean: By stability, I mean remove the idea of war as a solution to solve border or ethnic problems. This is certainly doable within the partner states and between the partner states and Russia. To achieve it, funds need to be distributed to education projects and disarmament. They must also be used to sensibly increase the quality of life of the inhabitants. Finally, Russia is very different from the EU, but it still understands it pretty well since it is able to play on the differences between the member states.

L"Espagne, qui prendra la présidence de l"UE après la Suède, a déclaré que les relations avec la Russie seront une priorité. Qu"en pense la Suède ?

Ingmar Oldberg: Sweden often says “we are only a great power for 6 months”. We do have problems with Russia concerning the North Stream project on a bilateral level. We do not need Russia"s gas. Consequently, we don"t see why we would allow Russian gas to go through the North Sea if it is to impact on our environment. We all have different attitudes towards Russia.

Could you give us examples of the pre conflict policy you recommend within the Eastern Partnership?

Dominic Fean: Unfortunately, it is more about conflict containment than conflict resolution. Recognising already what is going on is a big step.

What is the real use of the Eastern Partnership? More complexity or more efficiency?

Ingmar Oldberg: The Eastern Partnership is useful for 4 main reasons. First, it is the 6 partner states" wishes to establish such a partnership. Second, it will provide stability within neighbourhood of the EU which is always something positive. Third, it is much better than the ENP which is applied to a great number of very different countries. Finally, the Eastern partnership is aiming at creating links not only between the EU and the partner states but also among those partner states.

Dominic Fean: There will be indeed more diplomats because of the Eastern Partnership: one more actually per country"s delegation.

It is important to insist on the role that local and regional cooperation plays in enhancing cooperation between partner states. For example, there is cooperation with the Georgian State Ministry for Euro-Atlantic and European Integration and help to write the Georgian handbook for ENP.

Dominic Fean: I totally agree. The cooperation that happened in the Black Sea region for example is a great example that is to be followed. Reducing the political element of cooperation efforts is the way to go. This applies also for cooperation with Russia, the Northern Dimension is often praised by Nordic states as a forum for apolitical problem solving can take place.