Difficult neighbours, or just good friends? Have the Eastern partners acted like difficult neighbours, or where they just good friends giving advice?

When European leaders meet their counterparts from the Eastern neighbourhood, they are often heard saying that like good friends, they feel obliged to raise difficult issues that may not be to the liking of their audience. For a moment in Warsaw last week it seemed that the tables were turned. The Eastern partners were doing some talking of their own, and the EU members had to listen impatiently.

The topic was Belarus. The EU hoped for a united position with the Eastern neighbours in putting pressure on Belarus on its record on democracy and human rights. Concern on Belarus within the EU had been building up for some time. The European Parliament has discussed the issue on many ocassion and has been stern in its criticism. Member states have also raised their concerns in different way, and eventually an EU wide consensus emerged. It was hoped that by brining in the Eastern Partnership countries to add their voice Belarus will feel more isolated and will take steps on the long awaited path to reform. Belarus had participated in the preperation of the Warsaw summit. At first it indicated it would be present with its foreign minister, later this was downgraded to its Ambassador in Warsaw. In the end it did not participate at all. So there was an opportunity for the summit to speak with one voice. The other Eastern partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan,Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) would have none of it.

A strong statement on Belarus was issued by the European Union members on their own. It offered Belarus an attractive assistance package in return for free elections, the release of political prisoners and a meaningful dialogue with the opposition. The final declaration of the Summit itself did not mention Belarus at all.

So was this a case of difficult ungrateful neighbours, or were the Eastern partners simply acting like good friends, and saying the truth even if it was difficult?

The main reason, quaintly referred to as "some reason" by Commission Chairman Barroso at the final Press Conference, was a concern expressed by the Eastern Partners that Belarus should not be isolated, but needs to be engaged with. This was spelled out by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili with his usual gusto. “It is very important for the EU not to lose control over this process and not to [allow] another great neighbor [referring to Russia] to seize this process,” Georgian media quoted Saakashvili as saying.

The Georgian President added that “It was bad that there was no Belarus representative in the hall and we have noted it – it was very bad. It is important for the next summits to do the utmost, including through dialogue and negotiations – EU is right when having a dialogue with the [Belarus] civil society representatives – at the same time talks based on principles should be carried out with official Minsk so that they take their seat on the negotiating table. This is important to foster European development of Belarus – we have noted it clearly here and the EU should be an important player in this process".

Some observeors however consider this concern for Belarus as hypocritical. A western diplomat in Warsaw reflected that by ensuring that there was no criticism of Belarus in the summit declaration this time, the Eastern partner leaders were ensuring that there will no criticism of their own countries next time.

Other observors also noted that since 2008 Georgia has been terrified of the prospect that Belarus might recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia and has stoped its criticism of Minsk on human rights - an issue on which Georgia had been vocal about after 2003.

Regardless of the reasons however the argument of the need to engage rather then isolate is a strong one. This disagreement outlines some of the difficulties ahead for the Eastern Partnership. The recent EU policy "more for more" - more assistance and more relations in return for more reforms may not be as easy as is hoped. Apart from Belarus, another issue loomed over the summit, the continued detention in Kiev of former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko. No mention of that in the final declaration either.

The summit did map out ways for developiong relations between the EU and the partner countries in a wide range of fields. These are tangible issues and if implemented will take the relationship to a higher level. But conditionality is now also an essential part of the EUs approach to the region. By standing firm on Belarus the European Union was also signalling to the other five partners that this was now being taken seriously.

source: prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

photo: The presidents of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine at the Warsaw Eastern Partnership Summit (picture courtesy of the Polish Government)

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.
Editor's choice
News
Medical Students stand for a Landmine Free South Caucasus

Medical Students stand for a Landmine Free South Caucasus

Medical Students in Tbilisi have participated in the campaign LANDMINE FREE SOUTH CAUCASUS 2026. The regional’ Landmine Free South Caucasus’ (LFSC) campaign was initiated by LINKS Europe Foundation in 2018 to address the critical issue of landmine and unexploded ordnance contamination in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. With significant landmine contamination in the region posing an ongoing threat to life and eliciting high economic costs, LFSC advocated for a regional, holistic approach to complete clearance.  Future Doctors Join the Conversation on Friday, 16 October in Tbilisi. "As part of the Landmine Free South Caucasus 2026 campaign, an informative and interactive meeting was held in Tbilisi with medical students. The session was conducted by George Simonishvili, South Caucasus Co-ordinator for LINKS Europe.  The meeting focused on the humanitarian consequences of landmines and other explosive remnants of war in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, with particular attention to the Red Bridge minefield near the borders of the three countries, and emphasised that these dangers remain a current humanitarian challenge. It also underlined that future medical professionals will encounter the long-term effects of explosion injuries and can play a role in awareness and prevention.  Students actively engaged throughout the discussion, showing strong interest in the humanitarian impact and the need for cooperation. Under the slogan "Future Doctors for a Landmine Free South Caucasus," the event encouraged students to support public awareness, solidarity with survivors, and a safer South Caucasus free from landmine threats.  The event was organised by LINKS Europe as part of LFSC26.  "Medical Students Stand for a Landmine Free South Caucasus," "Future Doctors, Safer Futures: Together Against Landmines." "Future Doctors for a Landmine Free South Caucasus".

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)