Relations between the EU and the three South Caucasus states are entering a new phase

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of Caucasus Concise a weekly electronic newsletter prepared in collaboration with commonspace.eu.

This has been a tumultuous year for the European Union. The European project in all its different dimensions is being challenged on all fronts, and the Brexit vote in June triggered a period of self- reflection in European capitals that is likely to last for a long time.

It has therefore been something of a wonder that despite all the difficulties, the EU has managed to remain focused on developing its relations with the South Caucasus states, to a point where we can see that 2016 has been an overall successful year in this regard, and things look even brighter for next year.

Some will quickly dismiss this to the fact that bureaucracies tend to maintain momentum, at least for some time, even if the engine has been switched off. Certainly the EU bureaucracy is difficult to turn round speedily - whichever the direction it is going. There are plenty of examples of that in all areas of policy. However, to attribute the new momentum in EU-South Caucasus relations simply to bureaucratic inertia would be hugely incorrect. The bureaucrats have been with their hand on the break vis-à-vis the region for a long time. But a political will to take relations forward is emerging both within the EU, and in the three countries of the South Caucasus themselves, and good people to people relations between EU citizens and Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians are helping the process considerably.

Georgia has always been the most enthusiastic supporter of relations with the EU. The Georgian Prime Minister was in Brussels last week, fresh from a convincing election victory, for a meeting of the Georgia-EU Association Council. The issue of visa liberalisation threatened to overshadow the visit, but in the end it did not. Georgia and the EU now have a substantial co-operation agenda covering a wide range of topics - there is much work to be done. EU officials admired the enthusiasm and the professionalism with which Prime Minister Kvirikashvili and his team are approaching their tasks. There was even a hint of embarrassment in the tone of EU officials, not often known for their modesty, when trying to explain the delays in the granting of visa liberalisation. (read more) The delays were technical in nature. Member states insisted that any further visa liberalisation deals could only happen if a suspension mechanism could be triggered. On this, as on many other matters, EU institutions are obliged to agree as part of a complicated decision making process. On Wednesday (7 December) they finally agreed.

The European Parliament rapporteur for the proposal, Agustín Díaz de Mera (EPP, ES), noted that "the changes agreed provide flexibility for the rapid activation of the suspension mechanism". He also underlined that the deal "will facilitate the immediate consideration of the two visa liberalization proposals for Georgia and Ukraine."

According to the deal, visa requirements may be reintroduced for a non-EU country in one or more of the following cases: a substantial increase in the number of nationals of that country refused entry or irregularly staying in the EU territory; a substantial increase in unfounded asylum applications, or a lack of cooperation on readmissions (returns of migrants). Visas could also be reintroduced in the event of threats to public policy or internal security related to nationals of the third country concerned. (read more)

The informal deal was backed by the Civil Liberties Committee on Thursday by 37 votes to 9, with 2 abstentions. The text still needs to be endorsed by the plenary of the European Parliament, probably next week, and national governments.

Assuming that no further complications emerge the Parliament should be able to vote in the changes before Christmas, and the visa liberalisation arrangement with Georgia will come into force soon after. This is hugely important from the perspective of the Georgians who see this as an important sign of acceptance within the European family.

However, discussions have been moving in a positive direction not only with Georgia, but also with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Here things were more complicated, since in Armenia and in Azerbaijan there remains a certain ambivalence, at least at official level, on relations with the European Union.

With Armenia, after the sudden Armenian decision not to sign the Association agreement with the EU in 2013, the two sides have been searching for ways to take the relationship forward. Armenia subsequently became a full member of the Eurasia Economic Union. This does not in itself constitute an obstacle to relations with the EU, but it adds complications in terms of what can actually be achieved through such co-operation. Discussions on a new framework agreement have now started, and there is a certain positive feeling on both sides these obstacles can be overcome, and that a meaningful agreement - with substance that can impact positively the people of Armenia, can be negotiated. It is early days, but it has been a good start. (read more)

With Azerbaijan too, relations reached a low ebb in 2013, and stayed like that ever since. Over the last months however, thanks not least to many people on both sides who understood the importance of change, relations between the EU and Azerbaijan have improved considerably. Now, it is possible to start discussions on a new strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, and both sides are optimistic that difficult as these discussions are likely to be, they will lead to an agreement in due course. (read more)

The European Union remains a key trading and business partners for all three countries. What is on the agenda is not simply declaratory statements but tangible measures that can improve the lives of millions of Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis. The EU is also the best partner these countries can have as they pursue a modernising agenda, something that all three share and aspire for.

For Armenia and Azerbaijan the European Union is also an essential partner in their quest for a solution of the Karabakh conflict. True, the EU is not a member of the OSCE Minsk Group, and it is the co-Chair of this group that drive this process. However the EU is not a disinterested party either, and its huge experience of dealing with conflicts close to its borders, its political and economic weight, and its sheer proximity to the region, give it a stake in the peace process. (read more)

This week in Brussels two small meetings took place highlighting the EU's potential future role. On 6 December, a meeting was held in the framework of the EU supported EPNK programme to discuss peacekeeping and confidence building in the context of the Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution basis. (read more)

On 8 December, the European parliament hosted another meeting this time to discuss the human rights situation in the conflict regions on Europe's eastern borders, including Nagorno-Karabakh. (read more)

At both meetings, Armenian and Azerbaijani stakeholders worked with European counterparts to discuss and develop new ideas which can support the peace process. These were modest initiatives but, they were positive steps. Even such small positive steps were practically impossible only a few weeks ago.

There are those in different places, and for a wide variety of reasons, who do not want to see the European Union's relations with the South Caucasus develop. But for the first time we see a momentum both in the EU and in the region for these relations to go forward. There will be spoilers on the way, but they are less influential than before, and it seems that the tide is turning against them. The visa liberalisation decision will make a huge impact not only in Georgia but also in the wider region, and will prove, as one MEP, Kati Piri, tweeted, "when a country delivers, the EU keeps its promises".

The relations of the European Union with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are on different trajectories and move at different speeds but in all cases remain fragile - subject to a multitude of internal and external factors that can impact them negatively. Yet as we approach the end of 2016 we can see some important positive signs. The foundations are now there to take this work forward in 2017 and beyond.

source: This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of Caucasus Concise a weekly electronic newsletter prepared in collaboration with commonspace.eu. To subscribe please send an email to caucasus.concise.newsletter@gmail.com

picture: Georgian and EU flags appear on the balcony in Old Tbilisi as news emerges that a final decision on visa free travel for georgians to EU countries may be imminent. (picture courtesy of agenda.ge)

Latest

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

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

Editor's choice

News

In Astana, Ministers brief foreign diplomats on measures in Tokayev's "State of the nation" speech

13 November 2026

Popular

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

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”

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