Tweet
euinside.eu, European Union
Aug 23 2012
The Results of the `Europeanisation' Test for the Six Eastern Partners of the EU
Published: August 23, 2012 14:38, Zhaneta Kuyumdzhieva, trainee, Sofia
At the September 2011 Warsaw summit of EU and the countries from the
Eastern partnership, Herman van Rompuy, the European Council
president, stated that the EU had made considerable progress toward
conclusion of new and better agreements concerning the relations with
most of its partners. In May 2012, an expert pool of the International
Renaissance Foundation in cooperation with the Open Society
Foundations presented their assessment about the progress of the
Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries on the basis of three benchmarks:
linkage or growing political, economic and social ties between each of
the six EaP countries and the EU; approximation - structures and
institutions in the EaP countries converging towards EU standards and
in line with EU requirements; management - evolving management
structures and policies for European integration in EaP countries.
In general, the report on the `Europeanisation' process of Azerbaijan,
Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine confirms the EU
President's statement in its two main messages: that there is a
substantial progress in the relations and that this is valid for the
most of the EaP partners.
Where is EU on the Eastern front?
This spring the EU has published its programme with a number of
actions to be taken before the next regular EaP summit in the autumn
of 2013. The progress of the six countries will be evaluated on the
basis of their political and economic integration and a number of
tasks, such as mobility and visa liberalisation, participation in EU
programmes and agencies, reforms, strengthening of co-operation in the
fields of energy, security, transport, agriculture, regional
development, human rights policies, democracy etc.
The negotiations on the association agreement with Ukraine, that
includes a new set of free trade zone rules, were finished in the end
of last year and on 30 March 2012 the agreement was initialled despite
the tensions and the growing concerns about the real intentions of
President Viktor Yanukovych about the trial against ex-PM Yulia
Tymoshenko (the EU believes that this process has been politically
motivated). This year saw the start of the negotiations on similar
agreements and a relatively good progress in the talks with Moldova,
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Taking into account the EU principle
`the more you do, the more you will get', we cannot say much about the
relations with Belarus (or at least no good things). Currently, they
are based mainly on the European Modernisation Dialogue - an
initiative of the Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Füle from March 2012
in support of the political actors and the civil society in the
country in their fight for human rights and democracy.
The experts evaluation
The NGO index divides the six partner countries into two categories:
countries with clear EU ambitions - Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine, and
countries with not so strong interest in the EU - Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Belarus. Moldova is identified as the most motivated partner,
especially with regard to democracy. In its category the country is
leader on all three benchmarks. The successful elections in March 2012
that put an end to a 3-year-long political crisis is a condition for
strengthening of reforms and for the establishment of more stable
internal environment. There is also progress in the negotiations on an
association agreement, reforms in a couple of sectors and particularly
concerning visa liberalisation.
Despite the good performance of Moldova and the effort of its
government to use pro-European language, the civic support for the
policy harmonisation with the EU has dropped by 23% since 2007.
Experts refer this to several reasons: the eurozone crisis, the lack
of tangible benefits for the ordinary citizens from the EU membership
(such as the visa-free travel), the growing support for the customs
union with Russia and the negative position of the opposition party
toward the EU that was clearly stated in public.
The second-best country in the more successful category is Georgia -
second in the approximation and management and third in terms of
improvement of the political and economic links with the EU. In
general, the country demonstrates a strong commitment for the
institutional agenda related to the EU integration. Compared to the
other five EaP countries its economic progress is indisputable
although a better business environment has been reported also in
Moldova and Belarus. Georgia's weakness lies in the political field.
The elections scheduled in October will provide a response to the
question whether the country would make a step forward to come closer
to the EU. It will be an important test of Georgia's ability to
achieve greater responsibility and pluralism in its political system.
The latter will improve also its democracy level - a value that the EU
started to particularly pursue since the "Arab Spring" and the trends
that emerged with it.
The political problems of Ukraine are identical. The country did not
manage to make the necessary judiciary and energy reforms. 2011 was
marked by a growing trend of power monopolisation by the president and
the ruling party. In the economy, the results are not good either and
the business climate worsened. The positive results are in the
budgetary planning and the visa liberalisation as Ukraine successfully
introduced a personal data protection system and adopted a migration
policy. Following the best practises of EU and the IMF requirements,
the pension reform is one of the reasons why the country was
classified among the well-performing Eastern partners.
Armenia holds the first place in the camp of the countries that are
less ambitious toward EU. It, however, has demonstrated political will
for reforms and has good results on the benchmark that evaluates
approximation with EU standards. In May 2012 Armenia was granted
observer status in the EU energy community and a little earlier (in
February) started negotiations on visa liberalisation and readmission
agreement. Last year was established a Mobility Partnership with the
EU, too. All this speaks of a deepening of the relations between
Yerevan and Brussels, particularly because the initiatives and the
working programmes have been incited by Armenia itself.
Following the review of the Eastern Partnership in May 2011,
`sustainable democracy' became the leading principle of the EU in its
relations with third countries. Behind the prioritisation of this
principle stands the requirement for a stricter implementation (and
sometimes establishment) of the key democratic elements such as free
and honest elections, respect for human rights, independence of the
judiciary etc. Exactly those are the problems of Belarus and
Azerbaijan - the last two EaP countries.
Azerbaijan had a number of foreign policy opportunities in the last
year and made good use of them. It received a place in the UN Security
Council, signed key agreements for transportation of gas from the
Caspian Sea to the EU market, strengthened its relations with NATO
(mainly with regard to Afghanistan) and participated in the G20
meeting in 2011. Its relations with EU also progressed with the
renewal of the visa liberalisation negotiations. Azerbaijan started
negotiations for an association agreement. All this, however, even the
4% economic growth does not manage to compensate the weaknesses in the
social policies and with regard to the fundamental democratic rights.
The media landscape is highly discredited, the NGOs survive under the
pressure of the government, the number of the political prisoners
grows and in the beginning of 2012 there were a number of testimonies
for torments and beating of journalists. Therefore, the expectations
that the political elite in Azerbaijan would strengthen the
co-operation with EU, beyond the trade relations and exchange of
practises, are rather vague.
Belarus' achievements with regard to democracy are also disappointing
The country holds the last place, according to the EaP benchmarks. The
beginning of 2012 was marked by a serious diplomatic crisis between
Brussels and Minsk. The repressions, the judiciary that is entirely
dependent on the president, the restrictions in civic rights and
freedom, the high levels of corruption and media pressure are the
reasons for the lagging behind with the implementation of democratic
values. Despite that lately Belarus is subject to tough criticism
about its political practises, the economic relations of the country
with the EU are surprisingly strong. The trend is confirmed by a
number of trade talks and investment consultations held with EU member
states representatives.
The EU strategy toward Belarus is also not clear despite the reduced
financing and the sanctions imposed because of political reasons. The
suggestion of the experts report that Minsk has a number of interests
in Brussels is, however, valid. It is based on the expectation that,
while the EaP country sticks to its close economic and political
relations with Russia, it will be an interesting and needed partner of
the EU. However, it cannot be predicted for how long this acrobatic
balance can hold.
http://www.euinside.eu/en/news/results-on-europeanisation-test-for-the-six-eastern-partnership-states
Aug 23 2012
The Results of the `Europeanisation' Test for the Six Eastern Partners of the EU
Published: August 23, 2012 14:38, Zhaneta Kuyumdzhieva, trainee, Sofia
At the September 2011 Warsaw summit of EU and the countries from the
Eastern partnership, Herman van Rompuy, the European Council
president, stated that the EU had made considerable progress toward
conclusion of new and better agreements concerning the relations with
most of its partners. In May 2012, an expert pool of the International
Renaissance Foundation in cooperation with the Open Society
Foundations presented their assessment about the progress of the
Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries on the basis of three benchmarks:
linkage or growing political, economic and social ties between each of
the six EaP countries and the EU; approximation - structures and
institutions in the EaP countries converging towards EU standards and
in line with EU requirements; management - evolving management
structures and policies for European integration in EaP countries.
In general, the report on the `Europeanisation' process of Azerbaijan,
Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine confirms the EU
President's statement in its two main messages: that there is a
substantial progress in the relations and that this is valid for the
most of the EaP partners.
Where is EU on the Eastern front?
This spring the EU has published its programme with a number of
actions to be taken before the next regular EaP summit in the autumn
of 2013. The progress of the six countries will be evaluated on the
basis of their political and economic integration and a number of
tasks, such as mobility and visa liberalisation, participation in EU
programmes and agencies, reforms, strengthening of co-operation in the
fields of energy, security, transport, agriculture, regional
development, human rights policies, democracy etc.
The negotiations on the association agreement with Ukraine, that
includes a new set of free trade zone rules, were finished in the end
of last year and on 30 March 2012 the agreement was initialled despite
the tensions and the growing concerns about the real intentions of
President Viktor Yanukovych about the trial against ex-PM Yulia
Tymoshenko (the EU believes that this process has been politically
motivated). This year saw the start of the negotiations on similar
agreements and a relatively good progress in the talks with Moldova,
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Taking into account the EU principle
`the more you do, the more you will get', we cannot say much about the
relations with Belarus (or at least no good things). Currently, they
are based mainly on the European Modernisation Dialogue - an
initiative of the Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Füle from March 2012
in support of the political actors and the civil society in the
country in their fight for human rights and democracy.
The experts evaluation
The NGO index divides the six partner countries into two categories:
countries with clear EU ambitions - Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine, and
countries with not so strong interest in the EU - Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Belarus. Moldova is identified as the most motivated partner,
especially with regard to democracy. In its category the country is
leader on all three benchmarks. The successful elections in March 2012
that put an end to a 3-year-long political crisis is a condition for
strengthening of reforms and for the establishment of more stable
internal environment. There is also progress in the negotiations on an
association agreement, reforms in a couple of sectors and particularly
concerning visa liberalisation.
Despite the good performance of Moldova and the effort of its
government to use pro-European language, the civic support for the
policy harmonisation with the EU has dropped by 23% since 2007.
Experts refer this to several reasons: the eurozone crisis, the lack
of tangible benefits for the ordinary citizens from the EU membership
(such as the visa-free travel), the growing support for the customs
union with Russia and the negative position of the opposition party
toward the EU that was clearly stated in public.
The second-best country in the more successful category is Georgia -
second in the approximation and management and third in terms of
improvement of the political and economic links with the EU. In
general, the country demonstrates a strong commitment for the
institutional agenda related to the EU integration. Compared to the
other five EaP countries its economic progress is indisputable
although a better business environment has been reported also in
Moldova and Belarus. Georgia's weakness lies in the political field.
The elections scheduled in October will provide a response to the
question whether the country would make a step forward to come closer
to the EU. It will be an important test of Georgia's ability to
achieve greater responsibility and pluralism in its political system.
The latter will improve also its democracy level - a value that the EU
started to particularly pursue since the "Arab Spring" and the trends
that emerged with it.
The political problems of Ukraine are identical. The country did not
manage to make the necessary judiciary and energy reforms. 2011 was
marked by a growing trend of power monopolisation by the president and
the ruling party. In the economy, the results are not good either and
the business climate worsened. The positive results are in the
budgetary planning and the visa liberalisation as Ukraine successfully
introduced a personal data protection system and adopted a migration
policy. Following the best practises of EU and the IMF requirements,
the pension reform is one of the reasons why the country was
classified among the well-performing Eastern partners.
Armenia holds the first place in the camp of the countries that are
less ambitious toward EU. It, however, has demonstrated political will
for reforms and has good results on the benchmark that evaluates
approximation with EU standards. In May 2012 Armenia was granted
observer status in the EU energy community and a little earlier (in
February) started negotiations on visa liberalisation and readmission
agreement. Last year was established a Mobility Partnership with the
EU, too. All this speaks of a deepening of the relations between
Yerevan and Brussels, particularly because the initiatives and the
working programmes have been incited by Armenia itself.
Following the review of the Eastern Partnership in May 2011,
`sustainable democracy' became the leading principle of the EU in its
relations with third countries. Behind the prioritisation of this
principle stands the requirement for a stricter implementation (and
sometimes establishment) of the key democratic elements such as free
and honest elections, respect for human rights, independence of the
judiciary etc. Exactly those are the problems of Belarus and
Azerbaijan - the last two EaP countries.
Azerbaijan had a number of foreign policy opportunities in the last
year and made good use of them. It received a place in the UN Security
Council, signed key agreements for transportation of gas from the
Caspian Sea to the EU market, strengthened its relations with NATO
(mainly with regard to Afghanistan) and participated in the G20
meeting in 2011. Its relations with EU also progressed with the
renewal of the visa liberalisation negotiations. Azerbaijan started
negotiations for an association agreement. All this, however, even the
4% economic growth does not manage to compensate the weaknesses in the
social policies and with regard to the fundamental democratic rights.
The media landscape is highly discredited, the NGOs survive under the
pressure of the government, the number of the political prisoners
grows and in the beginning of 2012 there were a number of testimonies
for torments and beating of journalists. Therefore, the expectations
that the political elite in Azerbaijan would strengthen the
co-operation with EU, beyond the trade relations and exchange of
practises, are rather vague.
Belarus' achievements with regard to democracy are also disappointing
The country holds the last place, according to the EaP benchmarks. The
beginning of 2012 was marked by a serious diplomatic crisis between
Brussels and Minsk. The repressions, the judiciary that is entirely
dependent on the president, the restrictions in civic rights and
freedom, the high levels of corruption and media pressure are the
reasons for the lagging behind with the implementation of democratic
values. Despite that lately Belarus is subject to tough criticism
about its political practises, the economic relations of the country
with the EU are surprisingly strong. The trend is confirmed by a
number of trade talks and investment consultations held with EU member
states representatives.
The EU strategy toward Belarus is also not clear despite the reduced
financing and the sanctions imposed because of political reasons. The
suggestion of the experts report that Minsk has a number of interests
in Brussels is, however, valid. It is based on the expectation that,
while the EaP country sticks to its close economic and political
relations with Russia, it will be an interesting and needed partner of
the EU. However, it cannot be predicted for how long this acrobatic
balance can hold.
http://www.euinside.eu/en/news/results-on-europeanisation-test-for-the-six-eastern-partnership-states