Will Riga be the last Eastern Partnership summit in this format?

This is a commentary prepared by the analytical team at LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research).

The Eastern Partnership Summit, bringing together the 28 member states of the European Union, and their six Eastern neighbours, takes place today and tomorrow in the Latvian Capital, Riga. The small country of Latvia has put a lot of effort in the successful hosting of the summit, reflecting also Latvia's long held sense of solidarity with those countries that used to form part of the Soviet Union that no longer want to exist as part of Russia's shadow. In many ways managing Russia's shadow  is what this summit is all about.

The six Eastern neighbours - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine may share a common past, but do not share a common vision of the future. Three of them want closer relations with the EU, including a membership perspective. They have just signed Association Agreements with the European Union. Armenia and Belarus have opted instead for full membership in the Russian led Eurasian Economic Union. Azerbaijan says it wants none of these options. Its President, once hailed as a pro Western reformer, has decided to stay away from the Riga summit altogether.

Nothing of much substance is expected to come out from the summit. The draft final declaration, widely circulated ahead of the summit, seems designed to disappoint everybody. The fluidity of the situation in Ukraine, domestic shenanigans in Moldova and persistent caution at being entangled too much in Georgia, has clouded thinking in the European centres of power, Berlin, as much as Brussels. Privately some European officials express relief that Armenia and Azerbaijan have walked away from the process, even if formally they continue talking about new treaties and relationships. Belarus was, given its domestic politics, never close enough to be relevant to the present discussions. Yet none of these countries, nor their problems, are going to fade away. They remain the European Union closest neighbours - not only geographically, but also culturally and in the broad sense of the word, politically. Europe's policy towards them needs to be coherent and consistent, and based on generosity and understanding. For those countries on the European continent EU membership must remain an option, on a case by case basis.

The European Union is at this point also rethinking its whole neighbourhood strategy - both to the East and to the South. It is therefore a good time to take stock and to move forward boldly. Moving forward there is very little scope for keeping the Eastern Partnership in its present format. Riga should be the last summit of its kind. The EU should stop trying to create artificial groupings of countries, a process much loved by bureaucrats, but unwieldy to relate to, politically and economically. From now on relations between the EU and the six countries need to develop bilaterally rather than multilaterally. This is what the six countries themselves want, and increasingly more and more of those in the EU dealing with the region are convinced of this too. There should be scope for groups of countries to work together within any future EU instrument. But the basis should be ad hoc and voluntary, and not unilaterally. On some issues Tunisia and Georgia may have things in common, on others Azerbaijan and Algeria may fit better. Now is the time for creative flexibility.

There will remain a need for the EU to engage with its neighbours in a multilateral framework. This is as much needed to maintain the focus of the member states to the issues of the neighbourhood, as much as it is for substance in EU's relations with neighbouring countries. Member states should be encouraged to develop in groups better relations with individual neighbours or groups of neighbours, but must first show an ability to deal strategically with the issue of the neighbourhood as a whole. The new neighbourhood policy that will emerge sometime later this year must discourage the trend of EU member states to divide between those prioritising relations with the south and other prioritising relations with the east. The EU's approach to the neighbourhood must be holistic.

The Riga Eastern Partnership summit provides us all with an opportunity to take stock. It will help form opinion on where to go next, but the debate on this will not be settled in Riga and neither will the decision. 

source: This commentary was prepared by the analytical team at LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research). More information on LINKS (DAR) is available at www.links-dar.org, or by contacting info@links-dar.org.


 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

srael’s parliament approved a bill on Monday that would allow the execution of Palestinians convicted on terror charges for deadly attacks, a move that has been criticized as discriminatory and immediately drew a court challenge. Sixty-two lawmakers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, voted in favor and 48 against the bill, championed by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. There was one abstention and the rest of the lawmakers were not present. Ben Gvir in the run-up to the vote had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation. “We made history!!! We promised. We delivered,” he posted on X after the vote. The bill would make the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed “acts of terrorism” by an Israeli military court. The bill says that the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment under “special circumstances.” Palestinians in the West Bank are automatically tried in Israeli military courts. Meanwhile, under the bill, in Israeli criminal courts anyone “who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of harming an Israeli citizen or resident out of an intention to put an end to the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” Criminal courts try Israeli nationals, including Palestinian citizens and residents of east Jerusalem. The bill sets the execution method as hanging, adding that it should be carried out within 90 days of the sentencing, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days. - ‘Parallel tracks’ - The bill appears to conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination, and shortly after it was passed, a leading human rights group announced that it had filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the legislation’s annulment. “The law creates two parallel tracks, both designed to apply to Palestinians,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said in a statement. “In military courts — which have jurisdiction over West Bank Palestinians — it establishes a near-mandatory death sentence,” the rights group said. In civilian courts, the law’s stipulation that defendants must have acted “with the aim of negating the existence” of Israel “structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators,” the group added. The association argued the law should be annulled on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds. During the debate in parliament, opposition lawmaker and former deputy Mossad director, Ram Ben Barak, expressed outrage at the legislation. “Do you understand what it means that there is one law for Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and a different law for the general public for which the State of Israel is responsible?” he asked fellow parliamentarians, using the Israeli name for the West Bank. “It says that Hamas has defeated us. It has defeated us because we have lost all our values.” - ‘Discriminatory application’ - Lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech from Ben Gvir’s party, who years ago survived an attack by Palestinian militants in which her husband was killed, urged fellow parliamentarians to approve the bill. “For years, we endured a cruel cycle of terror, imprisonment, release in reckless deals, and the return of these human monsters to murder Jews again ... And today, my friends, this cycle has come full circle.” The Palestinian Authority condemned the law’s adoption, saying that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land.” “This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimize extrajudicial killing under legislative cover,” it added. In February, Amnesty International had urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, citing its “discriminatory application against Palestinians.” On Sunday, Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the bill, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.” While the death penalty exists for a small number of crimes in Israel, it has become a de facto abolitionist country — the Nazi Holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichmann was the last person to be executed in 1962. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 and violence there has soared since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the Gaza war. (read more by clicking the image above).

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)