Commentary: EU's close engagement with the South Caucasus is ambitious and long lasting

This is a commentary prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

On Thursday, (13 June) the European Union held high level consultations with Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In Baku, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev met with the EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, Johannes Hahn, whilst nearly at the same time in Brussels, EU High Representative, Federica Morgherini was meeting with Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan.

Traditionally EU relations with Georgia have been close and deep, even if not without problems. The Association Agreement signed between Georgia and the EU offers the highest level of co-operation possible to a non-candidate country, and provides a very solid basis for EU-Georgian relations going forward. With Armenia and Azerbaijan the pattern of relations has been somewhat more chequered. But in recent years relations have improved considerably, to the point where we can say that they are excellent, which does not mean however that there are not yet problems and issues to be resolved.

In Brussels yesterday, the second Partnership Council meeting between the European Union and Armenia "reaffirmed the commitment of the EU and Armenia to implement effectively the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA). This ambitious agreement can play an important role for the modernisation of Armenia, in particular through legislative approximation to EU norms in many sectors. The Council highlighted the paramount importance of the rule of law and respect for human rights, which includes an independent, efficient and accountable justice system."

The European Union has looked sympathetically at the efforts of the new Armenian leadership, led by Nikol Pashinyan, to implement reforms in many sectors. One of these sectors is judicial reform. Here the Partnership Council underlined the importance of an independent, efficient and accountable judiciary which contributes not only to the protection of human rights but also to a business environment favourable to economic development and foreign investment. "The Council welcomed the current efforts aiming at comprehensive judicial reform in Armenia in accordance with the Armenian Constitution and with international standards. Following the launch of an EU-Armenia dialogue on judicial reform in September 2018 the EU stands ready to provide further support for comprehensive judicial reform based on a justice reform strategy." This is not a blank check for the government of Armenia to do what it wants, and should not be read as such. It is a genuine expression of understanding of the difficulties that Armenia faces in this sector, and an offer to use best practices to assist it in dealing with them.

Armenia has high expectations as to what the EU can do to help it economically. It is unlikely that these expectations can ever be fulfilled in full. Yet here also, the EU's hand of help has been generous, consistent and without geo-political strings. Many in Armenia, even if not all, appreciate this.

The meeting between the president of Azerbaijan and Commissioner Johannes Hahn, also yesterday, comes at an important moment in EU-Azerbaijan relations. Relations are better than they have been for many years, but both sides are willing, indeed determined, to move them even more forward. The prospect of a new contractual agreement between Azerbaijan and the EU is now definitely on the horizon. Azerbaijan sees its role as an energy provider from its own natural resources -  and as a hub for the transportation and transit of those of others further afield - as key factors in determining its relations with the EU. But both sides appreciate that there is a wider agenda. The development of Azerbaijan's non energy sector; structural reforms, human rights and security are among some of the issues on the agenda as the new agreement is finalised. The contribution that the EU can make in all these areas is enormous, as long as Baku has the political will to engage and respond.

Overshadowing the bilateral relations, between the EU and Armenia and the EU and Azerbaijan, is the issue of the Karabakh conflict and its resolution. The EU supports the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair, and articulates its position in terms of those ongoing efforts. That is satisfactory to the sides only to a point. There have been many efforts by both sides to shift the EU position in their favour. The EU's position remains however principled rather than biased, even if the principles sometimes favour one of the sides, and sometimes the other. That is how it is likely to continue. The EU has also the right to have expectations in this regard. It has legitimate interests in being engaged in the process of resolving the Karabakh conflict since the conflict has widespread ramifications for the whole region and beyond. A more positive approach on the part of both Armenia and Azerbaijan on this matter can only be helpful for the overall effort to resolve the conflict.

The European Union is sending a key message to the region, and to those interested in the region. Its engagement with the South Caucasus is ambitious and long lasting. The European Union's friendship and solidarity with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia is unquestionable. Issues in the relations remain. They need to be properly managed and addressed. They certainly should not be allowed to spoil what are clearly mutually beneficial relationships.

source: This is a commentary prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

photo: EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Johannes Hahn with President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan at their meeting in baku on 13 June 2019 (picture courtesy of the press service of the president of Azerbaijan)

 

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)