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.


 

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).
Editor's choice
News
King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King Charles has described the transatlantic slave trade as a "shameful chapter of history" that filled him with "profound sorrow" as he opened a summit of Commonwealth leaders in the Caribbean. He said the trade in enslaved persons "still casts a shadow" over the association of nations. There have been calls from some for the UK to make a formal apology for its historic role in the slave trade ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) in Antigua and Barbuda, but there was not one in the King's address. Prime Minister Andy Burnham, also at the summit, has said that he is open to Britain issuing a formal apology but has ruled out financial reparations. While there was no direct apology, the King did offer some contrition - and there was also an acknowledgement that he had personally learnt more about the legacy of the slave trade. He said: "The transatlantic trade in enslaved persons still casts a shadow over these islands and other members of our Commonwealth. "As I have said before, that shameful chapter of history is one that fills my heart with horror and my soul with the most profound personal sorrow." (click image to read more).

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)