Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NK, South Ossetia, Abkhazia: Workings of Euro policy on So Caucasus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NK, South Ossetia, Abkhazia: Workings of Euro policy on So Caucasus

    Caucaz
    europenews

    01/30/2005 23:36 Tbilisi

    Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia : the workings of the European
    policy on South Caucasus [EU - CONFLICTS - DOV LYNCH]

    By François GREMY and Célia CHAUFFOUR in Paris
    On 28/11/2004


    Light on the workings of the European policy on South Caucasus. How should
    we understand the common point of view of the member States at the European
    Institutional level? Interview with Dov Lynch, researcher at the European
    Union Institute for Security Studies (EU-ISS), specialist of the EU-Russia
    relations and the security issues in Russia and in the ex-USSR.

    We know that the Europeans thinktanks are at least present, if not influent
    in the European structures. Do they mention the possibility to intervene in
    Abkhazia in a more committed way ? Is it feared that the Abkhazian crisis
    might lead to a domino effect in South-Caucasus ?

    There are several thinktanks, notably the Center for European Policy Studies
    (CEPS), and the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EU-ISS) where
    I work, as well as the Free University of Brussels for which Bruno
    Coppieters collaborates. But, there is no organization that is taking an
    official stance in favor of a more committed European intervention in
    Abkhazia.

    One month before Heikki Talvitie was appointed in July 2003, EU-ISS
    organized an International conference about South-Caucasus and the European
    Union. This conference gave me the opportunity to write an article and to
    raise the question of the commitment of EU in the Region. If EU was to get
    committed, by which conflict would it first deal with ? Even if this article
    was debated at the official level, it was not accepted.

    As regards Nagorno-Karabakh, EU offered its participation but only at the
    post-conflict level : proof that Brussels does not plan on intervening about
    the issues of conflict-solving and negotiations. It is known as the
    checkbook effect: you have at your disposal a checkbook and in case your
    interlocutor is ready, you agree to offer quickly your help by way of
    considerable financial means in order to consolidate Peace. But you do this
    only after making sure that the fondations of Peace have been laid down.

    Generally speaking, EU has decided to not intervene directly in the
    negotiation mechanism of the conflict so as to leave this to UN and OSCE.
    Its role which is limited for the previously mentionned reason, will be
    played after an agreement is reached in one of those regions of conflict. It
    will result in financings, local reconstructions, etc.

    But, the last events demonstrated that EU could change its stance. The
    South-Ossetian crisis was the proof of it. The special representative Heikki
    Talvitie wants to play a more direct role in the conflict opposing
    Saakashvili to Kokoïti. He recently organized a meeting about this, and
    during the crisis this summer he has regularly gone here and there in South
    Caucasus. His task to make things easier might even grow more important in
    the future.

    Regarding Abkhazia, it was decided that the Council did not have to
    intervene directly. But under the aegis of the Commission, Europe wants to
    take part in helping in the reconstruction. Hence the new program which was
    announced over last summer : it supports the reconstruction and transition
    to democracy in Western Georgia, notably in Zougdidi, but also in some
    Abkhazian regions. We integrated programs that were put aside a few years
    ago.


    When you talk about EU, what do you mean exactly by the Commission or other
    structures ?

    I mean the Council. The Parliament has very little influence over the EU
    political issues. The Commission is very influent - let's not forget that it
    has at its disposal considerable financial means. But, as regards the
    political line for the conflicts and EU's involvement in the negotiations,
    it is relevant of the Council of member States.


    What credit do you give to the delegation of the European Parliament which
    heads the three Parliamentary Commissions EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan,
    EU-Georgia ?

    As always, the Parliament acts as an idea catalyst. The Parliament managed
    to schedule and put on the agenda, some ideas which are for most of them
    much too ambitious, or considered unrealistic. Those ideas are not
    systematically integrated, but it is the role of the Parliament to support
    and defend concepts so as to EU does not lose sight of this region.


    With avant-gardist propositions ?

    Yes, but with a result finally not so influent. For many issues, and since
    1999, the Parliament advocates a common strategy for South-Caucasus. It is
    important that the Parliament asserts this, and that the local élite see one
    of the EU's actors makes such a stance public, since it fosters a certain
    solidarity and an attentive behavior.


    Is there countercurrents among the Commission and the European Parliament
    about a stronger EU's commitment in South-Caucasus, if not even an active
    policy to encourage those countries to apply for membership?

    It seems to me that the Parliament encourages membership since 1999. But the
    Council, the Commission and the Parliament concurr in admitting that the
    Parternship and Co-operation Agreements (PCA) which constitute the framework
    for the EU-South Caucasus relations are not sufficient to reach the goals
    announced in the PCA -political stability, conflict-solving and durable
    development.

    The Commission, the Council and the Parliament are aware of it. Since 1999,
    an internal debate is going on between those three main actors so as to find
    a solution. Everyone knows that the objectives of durable development and
    political stability cannot be considered without solving the conflicts. EU
    is in a difficult position : it is not ready to intervene, but its
    objectives cannot be fulfilled without a regional openness which requires to
    settle the tensions between Armenia and Turkey, notably the embargo, etc. A
    region has to be created.

    The European Parliament has been hoping for years for a common and more
    committed policy. As for the Commission, it maintains its position.
    But, the debate is before all taking place between the member States. Some
    States are in favour of a much more committed polciy, notably Germany and
    some Nordic countries. Other member States already committed in the region
    are not sure about the necessity of adopting a strategy at the regional
    level. They question the added value that EU might bring.


    Do you think that the interests of the countries which are the most influent
    in this zone may be incompatible with the ones of EU ?

    It is more a matter of added value than a matter of incompatibility. Some
    member States have adopted for ten years a national policy of intervention
    in this region. France co-presides the Minsk Group. Germans are very implied
    in solving the conflict in Abkhazia. The English also appointed Brian Fall
    as the special representative firstly for Georgia on October 1st 2002, and
    then for South-Caucasus. Brian Fall is an experienced diplomat and a former
    ambassador in Moscow. He knows this region very well.

    In 2002, those countries started to realize that a European policy might
    succeed where national policies had reached their limits. Those debates
    ended up by the appointment of Heikki Talvitie. The mandate of this new
    special representative is innovative, as the Council points out. But we coud
    also see there a compromise : Talvitie does not have an office in Brusells ;
    he has at his disposal a reduced budget and little technical support.
    Besides his post is mainly financed by Finland.


    A lack of means coupled to too much bureaucracy?

    Heikki Talvitie is very careful. He is very well aware of the limited weight
    of EU in the region, but also aware of the presence of other countries and
    organizations which already have a clear influence in the region. He was
    ambassador in Moscow and he knows very well Russia. Hence, he knows the
    constraints he has to deal with. The objective his first year of mandate is
    to meet the decision-makers. Russians were rather anxious as for the
    creation of this European representation, but he managed to « reassure »
    Moscow.


    Do you think that Heikki Talvitie will present at half-mandate a report
    about the regional situation or else a concrete action-plan ?

    I do not think so. I believe that he has to hand back a general report,
    every six or twelve months. Those are short documents where a certain number
    of ideas are highlighted. Those ideas may appear too timid, but his freedom
    of action is limited.

    I do not think that he can establish an action plan. An action plan has a
    specific connotation. UE implements action plans for Moldavia, Ukrain,
    Israël or in the framework of the new neighborhood policy.


    So it is not realistic to consider a definite regional policy by the next
    3-4 years ?

    Indeed. On the other hand, an action plan not at the regional level but at
    the national level might be considered - and, firstly for Georgia in case it
    carries on its transition. But, those action plans will be passed only after
    the first wave of action plans set up for the new neighbors and which will
    be ratified next month. Almost one year will have been necessary to
    negotiate an action plan with Ukrainians and Moldavians. This one comprises
    4-5 chapters about policy, economy and conflict-solving.

    For the time being, the South-Caucasus countries are not ready. Their being
    included in the new neighborhood policy last June is decisive at
    medium-term, but not immediatly. Everything is possible, but EU's strategy
    for the next 3-4 years basically depends on the current events. The
    topicality may open up options more quickly than forecasted, as well as
    close them.

    Translated by Marie Anderson.
Working...
X