Elation and frustration take it in turns in Vilnius. Polina Ivanova captures the mood at the civil society forum at the EaP summit

Commonspace.eu special correspondent in Vilnius, Polina Ivanova captures the mood at today's Civil Society Forum being held in the framework of the Eastern Partnership summit.

The LITExpo stands cold and empty on the outskirts of the city of vilnius, last night's snow turned to mud, with a few of the more hardened journalists wading through it. There is a sense among them that Vilnius has failed; that the train, which should have left Prague with six carriages but only really had five, has now arrived at Vilnius with another three lost along the way - to paraphrase Ian Bond, from the Centre for European Reform.

But this afternoon the conference hall became the venue for the initialing of Association Agreements between the European Union and two of its Eastern Partners, Georgia and Moldova, which participants of today's CIvil Society Forum have spoken of as nothing other than an inspiring success. The shadow of Ukraine's eleventh-hour decision, - so last minute that there's a pro-association advert in this week's London New Statesman magazine, paid for by the Ukrainian embassy - to abandon plans to sign this agreement, and to take a step away from extensive economic integration with the European Union, is conspicuous. However, the message of the Forum so far has been one of hope and progress towards a European future. A moving expression of this hope closed this morning's discussion ‘Eastern Partnership Policy: From Warsaw to Vilnius' as Ukrainian civil society activists took to the stage to sign their own, symbolic, agreement with the EU on a sheet of A3 paper, in colourful marker pens.

Despite the flurry of media activity and slight sense of elation that followed this moment, a number of uncomfortable questions remain. The congratulations extended to Georgia on its political and economic reforms, that have been so substantial as to make the final signing and implementation of the Association Agreement possible in 2014, raises the issue of actual EU membership. Whereas this was always on offer to Western Balkan states as they were making the necessary and difficult reforms to align their political, judiciary and economic systems to those of the EU member states, there isn't a clear "membership carrot" for the Eastern Partners. Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union allows for all "European states" to be potential members of the EU, but there has been some speculation over the language used to describe Georgia and Moldova in the two Association Agreements, and whether the lack of any reference to this Article in them is significant.

Yesterday's open letter by the Prime Minister of Georgia stated that the initialing of the Agreement launches a process that "will eventually lead to the accession of Georgia into the European Union." Speaking at the Forum today Maia Panjikidze, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Georgia, stated that "Article 49 is the one that is most important for us," and expressed her hope that the EU would share this view with the 80% of Georgian people that voted for Western-oriented parties in last month's presidential election. However the message from Carl Bildt, Sweden's Foreign Minister, at today's Forum indicated that any mention of EU membership at this point in time would create a false sense of hope in Eastern Partnership countries such as Georgia, as they have such a way to go before they will fulfill the criteria necessary for membership to be considered. There is a feeling that perhaps Tbilisi and Brussels are not exactly on the same page.

The issue of the "frozen regions" of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, raised by SciencesPo professor and member of the EU-Russia Centre in Brussels Marie Mendras, are a serious obstacle to further integration with Europe and complicate the path ahead after Vilnius. Ms Panjikidze argued that steps such as the Association Agreement help to resolve this issue by making Georgia a place that appeals to all sections of the Georgian territory, whether occupied by Russia or not, and would therefore help to unify the country. Bearing in mind the aggressive pressure that Russia has been using against those countries seeking closer relationships with the EU, it is difficult to see the process outlined by Ms Panjikidze as realistic.

Tomorrow is still being considered by delegates here as a watershed moment. European leaders have stressed that the door is still open for Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement and, rather surprisingly, one phrase has been used informally a great deal - "it all depends on what Ukraine does tomorrow".

Polina Ivanova is in Vilnius covering the Eastern Partnership Summit for Commonspace.eu

Photo: Philippe Cuisson, chief negotiator on DCFTA from the European Commission's directorate general for trade; Gunnar Wiegand, director of Russia, Eastern Partnership, Central Asia and Regional Cooperation at EU's external relations service; Georgia's First Deputy Foreign Minister Davit Zalkaliani and Georgia's Deputy Economy Minister Mikheil Janelidze initial AA/DCFTA between Georgia and the EU in Vilnius, November 28, 2013. Photo courtesy of the Georgian Foreign Ministry)

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).

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)