Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Analysis

Analysis: The European Parliament approves by a huge majority visa liberalisation for Georgia. Why was this decision so important for Georgia?

2 February 2017

This analysis was prepared by the staff of commonspace.eu. Some parts of this analysis were first published on a live blog carried on the website on 2 February 2017.

The European Parliament on Thursday (2 February) adopted by a huge majority a proposal to grant Georgians visa free travel to EU Schengen countries. The report presented by rapporteur Mariya Gabriel was adopted with 553 votes in favour, 66 against, and 28 abstentions. The measure is expected to become operative by the end of March, after it goes through a number of legal formalities within the EU institutions.

For Georgians, Europe is not simply an economic project, nor just a political alliance: it is a national vocation embedded in the sense of identity of the Georgian nation. Georgia has engaged with the EU for twenty-five years with missionary zeal, summarised simply but powerfully by Georgia's late statesman Zurab Zhvania in his first address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe - "I am Georgian and therefore I am European". There were on the way many ups and downs, but eventually Georgia became an Associate member of the EU through the Association Agreement signed in 2014, and which came into force last summer. Visa free travel is not a part of that agreement, but is a crucial add on that would make the hundreds of pages of association agreement tangibly relevant to the entire Georgian nation. The visa liberalisation measure has therefore assumed an importance for Georgians, and for Georgia's relations with the EU, that is far greater than would be the case with other countries.

Today's vote in the European parliament is the climax of years of complex negotiations. Relations between Georgia and the European Union go back to the early 1990s when Georgia regained its independence after the collapse of the USSR. The European Union was one of the first international organisations to engage with Georgia - initially offering emergency humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering of massive poverty and displacement caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conflicts that raged on its territory. The European Union opened a delegation in Georgia way back in 1994, and soon after Georgia and the EU signed a Partnership and Co-operation Agreement.

Discussions on lifting the visa requirement for Georgians wanting to travel to Europe have been going on for several years. The Georgian government hoped that it could conclude the discussions in 2016, and put huge efforts into implementing the reforms that were asked from it by the EU as a condition for this measure. Things however got delayed as a result of external factors - including the European Union's difficulties in tackling a huge refugee and migration crisis that saw millions trying to enter the EU from countries in Africa and the Middle East. At a time when the emphasis was on tightening border controls, relaxing the entry requirements for millions of people, through relaxation of visa rules, was not a popular measure with the electorates in many countries and several EU governments wanted safeguards in place. In essence this is the reason for the delay. Not surprisingly the delays have caused huge frustrations  among the Georgian public. But two factors remained constant, and helped to ensure that Georgia and the EU stayed the course: the first is support in Georgia for European and Euro-Atlantic integration has remained solidly positive. This support reflects itself also in the position of most political parties, including the governing Georgian Dream party and the two wings of the opposition UNM, which have recently separated. The second factor is that despite everything else going on in the world, support for Georgia within the European Union - the institutions, the member states, the parliament, and wider public opinion, remained high, and remained solid. Today's vote was the ultimate proof of that.

In technical terms the approved measure is a draft law giving Georgian citizens the right to travel to the EU without a visa. Biometric passport holders will be able to enter the Schengen area for 90 days within any 180-day period for a holiday, business or any other purpose, except working.

Negotiators from the European Parliament and Council (representing the 28 member states) negotiators struck a deal on the legislation last December. The visa waiver will enter into force on the same date as the visa suspension mechanism, which allows EU member states to temporarily reintroduce visa requirements for reasons of public security.

The decision is a huge success for Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili and his team. Kvirikashvili spoke wisely when he addressed members of the government shortly before the vote was taken.

'I would like to thank to all MEPs that will take part in today's voting as this day is of historic importance for Georgia. I would also like to thank to all public servants that have contributed to the great success. I would like to express my gratitude to the parliament of Georgia and to all those that have participated in this process that resulted in a big success for Georgia,' the PM has remarked.  According to him, today's decision will confirm concrete results of being close to the EU.  The prime minister called on Georgians "to show great responsibility and obey the laws of those countries that they will visit as a result of this measure".

In effect, for Georgia this decision is a small step on a much longer journey. EU and NATO membership remain high on the agenda of the Georgian government, although there is also a realistic assessment that now may not be the time to push these forward. But with Georgians travelling freely in Europe that objective is now certainly one step closer.

This analysis was prepared by the staff of commonspace.eu. Some parts of this analysis were first published on a live blog carried on the website on 2 February 2017.

Photo: The Georgian Parliament celebrated the decision of the European Parliament to grant Georgians visa free travel with a huge cake with the Georgian and EU flags (picture screen grab from Imedi TV)

 

Latest

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

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
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).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

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

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

7 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

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

21 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut