Tweet
ARMENIA AS A SHOWCASE FOR THE NEW EUROPEAN NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY?
Carnegie Europe
April 2 2015
Posted by: Richard Youngs
Thursday, April 2, 2015 1 Print Page
Numerous policy papers and official documents now state that the
current review of the European Neighborhood Policy must deliver
policies that are flexible, more demand-driven, less bound to EU
institutional templates, and more selective in their priorities.
Largely unnoticed, in Armenia the EU is already trying to implement
these principles. Its attempt to do so demonstrates that the ritually
stated new principles of flexibility and local responsiveness do not
in themselves resolve the EU's most important policy challenges.
Indeed, they open another level of difficult tactical dilemmas.
The EU's current Eastern crisis started in Armenia. After more than
three years of negotiations, on September 3, 2013, Armenia pulled
out of its just-concluded Association Agreement with the EU. Instead,
Yerevan joined the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
The EU appears to have learned some important lessons from that jolt.
For some months after September 2013, the EU was understandably frosty
toward Armenia. More recently, however, the EU's response has been
pragmatic. Most forms of cooperation have continued.
The EU invited Armenia to identify those elements of the Association
Agreement in which it is still interested and that are compatible with
the country's EEU commitment. The EU has accepted this tailor-made
and demand-driven route toward drawing up a replacement agreement.
The EU's stated aim is to help Armenia retain a degree of multivector
pluralism in its foreign relations. Armenia is seen as a kind of
experimental gateway between the EEU and the Eastern Partnership
(the Eastern dimension of the European Neighborhood Policy).
Instead of punishing Armenia for choosing a partnership with Russia,
the EU is--in principle--offering cooperation around a set of
priorities chosen by Armenia. The difference with a vengeful Russia
is perhaps nowhere clearer. In the country that provoked the first
big shock for the Eastern Partnership, diplomats are now remarkably
sanguine about the EU's strategic positioning.
However, the way ahead is unlikely to be smooth. The EU might
espouse demand-driven flexibility in its new approach to the Eastern
Partnership, but this does not prevent the union from getting caught
up in some very tense domestic politics in places like Armenia.
The Armenian government seeks pragmatic areas of EU funding from
the new agreement and some areas of technical alignment. Government
officials in Yerevan are once again keener on some kind of economic
agreement with the EU, in part because Russia's financial troubles
have had a serious impact on the Armenian economy.
In contrast, civil society leaders argue that the replacement agreement
represents an opportunity for the EU to make democracy support its
niche priority in Armenia.
The EU has been admirably inclusive in consulting with Armenian civil
society organizations over the new agreement. But with the union
having only just finished a preparatory scoping exercise to look at
what could feasibly be included in the agreement, many civil society
organizations criticize the EU for moving extremely slowly.
The texts of the original accord were, after all, finalized two years
ago, and it should be possible simply to take out the free trade
elements and move ahead with the new package. Civil society leaders in
Yerevan suspect that the Russia factor is once again holding several
member states (and, indeed, Armenia) back.
Civil society organizations want a new agreement, but they also urge
the EU not to overlook Armenia's worsening political conditions. Since
January 2015, a political crisis has rocked the country. The government
effectively decimated one of the main political parties, weakening a
potential counterweight to executive power. Constitutional reforms are
stalled. Civic protests have grown in strength over the last year. The
government is planning a restrictive new NGO law, and executive control
over the media and judiciary has tightened--all concerns noted in
the EU's latest progress report on Armenia released on March 25.
NGOs berate the EU for doing relatively little to keep democracy
moving in the right direction in Armenia. One factor in this may be
that most opposition parties are more nationalistic and pro-Russian
than the current government.
So, the strategic dilemma remains which kind of more flexible and
tailored agreement the EU will favor.
Will the union indulge Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan's creeping
soft authoritarianism? The standard view is now that the EU needs to
be lighter in its use of conditionality. But should the EU really
abandon the use of conditionality altogether in a country in which
democracy is clearly moving backward?
Conversely, if the EU seeks a more political agreement, what is the
incentive for the Armenian government to accept this? Without the
free trade elements of the Association Agreement, one wonders what
leverage the EU will have over political and security questions.
A new accord will be valuable but will not in itself significantly
reinforce the EU's political influence. This will require member
states to invest more political weight through their diplomacy in
Armenia, by engaging directly on high-level security issues rather
than subcontracting out the lead role to a watered-down EU agreement.
In particular, the replacement agreement is unlikely to give the EU
any role in Armenia's security dynamics. And this matters, because
the security context looks increasingly precarious.
The ceasefire on the line of contact around the disputed region of
Nagorny-Karabakh has been shaken over the last nine months, with
Azerbaijan reminding the Armenians that this is not a frozen conflict.
And in the centennial year of the 1915 Armenian Genocide, relations
with Turkey have worsened to a new low point.
All this has made Armenia cling more tightly to its strategic
relationship with Russia as the main provider of security guarantees.
The EU and its member states are still reluctant to engage in military
support to offset this dependency.
In sum, the case of Armenia shows the EU's willingness to be flexible
and adjust its standard neighborhood model. But it also shows how this
incipient adjustment does not in itself solve the problem of how the
EU can and should fashion a more effective geostrategic identity in
its East.
The author thanks the German Marshall Fund of the United States and
the Robert Bosch Stiftung for including him in their study tour to
Armenia on March 9-13, 2015.
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59617
Carnegie Europe
April 2 2015
Posted by: Richard Youngs
Thursday, April 2, 2015 1 Print Page
Numerous policy papers and official documents now state that the
current review of the European Neighborhood Policy must deliver
policies that are flexible, more demand-driven, less bound to EU
institutional templates, and more selective in their priorities.
Largely unnoticed, in Armenia the EU is already trying to implement
these principles. Its attempt to do so demonstrates that the ritually
stated new principles of flexibility and local responsiveness do not
in themselves resolve the EU's most important policy challenges.
Indeed, they open another level of difficult tactical dilemmas.
The EU's current Eastern crisis started in Armenia. After more than
three years of negotiations, on September 3, 2013, Armenia pulled
out of its just-concluded Association Agreement with the EU. Instead,
Yerevan joined the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
The EU appears to have learned some important lessons from that jolt.
For some months after September 2013, the EU was understandably frosty
toward Armenia. More recently, however, the EU's response has been
pragmatic. Most forms of cooperation have continued.
The EU invited Armenia to identify those elements of the Association
Agreement in which it is still interested and that are compatible with
the country's EEU commitment. The EU has accepted this tailor-made
and demand-driven route toward drawing up a replacement agreement.
The EU's stated aim is to help Armenia retain a degree of multivector
pluralism in its foreign relations. Armenia is seen as a kind of
experimental gateway between the EEU and the Eastern Partnership
(the Eastern dimension of the European Neighborhood Policy).
Instead of punishing Armenia for choosing a partnership with Russia,
the EU is--in principle--offering cooperation around a set of
priorities chosen by Armenia. The difference with a vengeful Russia
is perhaps nowhere clearer. In the country that provoked the first
big shock for the Eastern Partnership, diplomats are now remarkably
sanguine about the EU's strategic positioning.
However, the way ahead is unlikely to be smooth. The EU might
espouse demand-driven flexibility in its new approach to the Eastern
Partnership, but this does not prevent the union from getting caught
up in some very tense domestic politics in places like Armenia.
The Armenian government seeks pragmatic areas of EU funding from
the new agreement and some areas of technical alignment. Government
officials in Yerevan are once again keener on some kind of economic
agreement with the EU, in part because Russia's financial troubles
have had a serious impact on the Armenian economy.
In contrast, civil society leaders argue that the replacement agreement
represents an opportunity for the EU to make democracy support its
niche priority in Armenia.
The EU has been admirably inclusive in consulting with Armenian civil
society organizations over the new agreement. But with the union
having only just finished a preparatory scoping exercise to look at
what could feasibly be included in the agreement, many civil society
organizations criticize the EU for moving extremely slowly.
The texts of the original accord were, after all, finalized two years
ago, and it should be possible simply to take out the free trade
elements and move ahead with the new package. Civil society leaders in
Yerevan suspect that the Russia factor is once again holding several
member states (and, indeed, Armenia) back.
Civil society organizations want a new agreement, but they also urge
the EU not to overlook Armenia's worsening political conditions. Since
January 2015, a political crisis has rocked the country. The government
effectively decimated one of the main political parties, weakening a
potential counterweight to executive power. Constitutional reforms are
stalled. Civic protests have grown in strength over the last year. The
government is planning a restrictive new NGO law, and executive control
over the media and judiciary has tightened--all concerns noted in
the EU's latest progress report on Armenia released on March 25.
NGOs berate the EU for doing relatively little to keep democracy
moving in the right direction in Armenia. One factor in this may be
that most opposition parties are more nationalistic and pro-Russian
than the current government.
So, the strategic dilemma remains which kind of more flexible and
tailored agreement the EU will favor.
Will the union indulge Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan's creeping
soft authoritarianism? The standard view is now that the EU needs to
be lighter in its use of conditionality. But should the EU really
abandon the use of conditionality altogether in a country in which
democracy is clearly moving backward?
Conversely, if the EU seeks a more political agreement, what is the
incentive for the Armenian government to accept this? Without the
free trade elements of the Association Agreement, one wonders what
leverage the EU will have over political and security questions.
A new accord will be valuable but will not in itself significantly
reinforce the EU's political influence. This will require member
states to invest more political weight through their diplomacy in
Armenia, by engaging directly on high-level security issues rather
than subcontracting out the lead role to a watered-down EU agreement.
In particular, the replacement agreement is unlikely to give the EU
any role in Armenia's security dynamics. And this matters, because
the security context looks increasingly precarious.
The ceasefire on the line of contact around the disputed region of
Nagorny-Karabakh has been shaken over the last nine months, with
Azerbaijan reminding the Armenians that this is not a frozen conflict.
And in the centennial year of the 1915 Armenian Genocide, relations
with Turkey have worsened to a new low point.
All this has made Armenia cling more tightly to its strategic
relationship with Russia as the main provider of security guarantees.
The EU and its member states are still reluctant to engage in military
support to offset this dependency.
In sum, the case of Armenia shows the EU's willingness to be flexible
and adjust its standard neighborhood model. But it also shows how this
incipient adjustment does not in itself solve the problem of how the
EU can and should fashion a more effective geostrategic identity in
its East.
The author thanks the German Marshall Fund of the United States and
the Robert Bosch Stiftung for including him in their study tour to
Armenia on March 9-13, 2015.
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59617