Tweet
Caucaz
europenews
01/30/2005 23:41 Tbilisi
European Parliament plays the South Caucasian hand. Does the Commission
follow up? [EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - NEIGHBORHOOD]
By Célia CHAUFFOUR in Strasburg
On 22/11/2004
Why did the European Union choose to include the South Caucasus in the New
Neighborhood Policy ? Political strategy or agreement dictated by
circumstances ? Marie-Anne Isler Béguin, President of the Delegation of
Parliamentaries Cooperation Commissions EU-South Caucasus, highlights this
event.
The European Parliament and the Parliaments of the Transcaucasian republics
-Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia- have established relations in the
framework of the partnership and cooperation agreements. Those agreements
came into effect in July 1999. Do the three commissions work with an equal
ease with each one of the South-Caucasian countries?
There is no difference of form and content between the Commisions. After
five years of interparliamentary cooperation, we have been establishing
in-depth relations in spite of the difficulties inherent to several
sensitive matters, notably the Human Rights and the latent conflicts such as
Nagorno-Karabakh one.
We have official meetings twice a year, once in Strasburg, once on the spot.
But we also get to meet with other members of Parliament upon additional
trips. Owing to these regular meetings and my close relationships with the
ambassadors of those three countries, kind of a dynamic has been
established.
In a first time, these three countries were frequently confused. But, we
quickly became aware of the particularities of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia - in spite of all those three countries evolve in a common
geostrategic region. Today, the new neighborhood policy totally
differentiates between those three countries.
Precisely, what was the impact of the new neighborhood policy extended to
the South-Caucasian countries regarding on both the objectives and the room
for manoeuvre of your delegation ?
Before all, I would want to precise that, when the new neighborhood policy
of the European Union was defined, neither the Council nor the Commision
really wished to integrate into it the South-Caucasus countries. Attentive
and sensitive to this, our delegation regularly exerted pressure so as to
add the necessary clauses - notably, the additional clauses to the
Commission of Foreign Affairs.
The Turkish problems also encouraged the ones who foresaw that there might
be a South-Caucasian card to play so as to avoid issues and upcoming
conflicts. That is why they integrated those three countries at the last
minute. But, this only an achievement at the level of the European
Parliament.
But this is just a first step. Indeed, what does this new neighborhood
policy mean as of today ? The EU and the Council do not know it themselves.
There is unavoidably some mistrust. When it presented its policy, the
Council was very careful. Alike the Commission.
I intervened in plenary session when M.Solana was presenting his general
policy so that we carefully take into consideration the three South-Caucasus
countries. Those countries are neighbors of Turkey which asked membership to
EU. Overall they have a European culture and they took the decision to
orient Westward, such as the countries of the former Eastern bloc. Even if
Teheran is closer to Strasburg, the southern Caucasus countries assert
sharing EU's values. Obviously, those countries have also difficulties to
les mettre en place, but maybe one day they will integrate EU ? Our
delegation defends this objective. I believe that EU as much as the Council
got it without willing to admit it.
But, the decision to integrate the three South-Caucasus countries to the new
neighborhood policy has for the time being only theoretical direct
consequences...
Our delegation clearly announced to the Commission, to Solana and to the
Council that it would encourage to set up concrete actions for those three
countries. The Action Plan for Georgia is absolutly mandatory. Saakashvili
publicaly announced, but not yet officialy, that he was in favour of a
future application for EU's membership. We have to live up to his
expectation.
The problems met by those small countries, and that we can solve today,
might increase tomorrow. The faster we will solve those latent conflicts,
the faster EU will strongly commit in this region still stuck between Russia
and the United States. EU is already present, but today a political
commitment is needed.
After having got the nomination of Heikki Talvitie as EU special
representative in South-Caucasus in July 2003, what is your next objective
regarding the still lacking commitment of EU in South-Caucasus?
The Green Party had been demanding for a long time, the nomination of a
special representative for the region. This nomination is very positive,
although a real feuille de route is necessary. I regularly meet with Heikki
Talvitie. He fulfils his task as a coordinator, but this action is still not
enough.
Maybe there should have been one year of adaptation in order to be able to
set up a waybill ?
M.Talvitie wants to wait until the half of his mandate, that is to say still
one year. We think that we have to act today. EU has to demonstrate, by the
voice of M. Talvitie, that it has a political project and is strongly
commited.
EU will most probably not solve those conflicts, but it has to make the
wills focus and to encourage now a plan of action. EU may not be satisfied
with this status quo, since any event could aggravate the situation and make
the conflicts bouncing back.
Your commissions aim to increase the awareness of the three South-Caucasus
countries about key issues such as the democracy, the Civil Society, and the
conflicts-solving. Except the conflicts-solving issue, what are today the
points noirs, or at least the most sensible questions that you would want to
advance?
We have to help those countries on their way for democracy and as regards
several domains : Human Rights, NGOs, political prisoners, etc. For
instance, the last elections in Azerbaijan did not take place according to
the International norms and standards. Southern-Caucasus has to be helped in
its democratic transition. Nevertheless those countries also ask us to be
patient with them.
Is there a concrete advance as regards those matters ?
Baku offered us to visit the jails so as to meet political prisoners. It is
essential. At the same time, we do not want to teach those countries a
lesson when they do not have the same past.
The delegation changed a lot owing to the addition of the ten new Eastern
countries. Not only, members of Parliament demonstrate a real will to put
more effort in South-Caucasus, but there is also an emerging concept of
network. For example, Vytautas Landsbergis, first vice-president of this
delegation who is also an acknowledged and very involved Lithuanian key
figure, has a certain authority. He can go further away in the criticism of
South-Caucasus given that the Baltic countries went trough the same history.
Translated by Marie Anderson
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
europenews
01/30/2005 23:41 Tbilisi
European Parliament plays the South Caucasian hand. Does the Commission
follow up? [EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - NEIGHBORHOOD]
By Célia CHAUFFOUR in Strasburg
On 22/11/2004
Why did the European Union choose to include the South Caucasus in the New
Neighborhood Policy ? Political strategy or agreement dictated by
circumstances ? Marie-Anne Isler Béguin, President of the Delegation of
Parliamentaries Cooperation Commissions EU-South Caucasus, highlights this
event.
The European Parliament and the Parliaments of the Transcaucasian republics
-Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia- have established relations in the
framework of the partnership and cooperation agreements. Those agreements
came into effect in July 1999. Do the three commissions work with an equal
ease with each one of the South-Caucasian countries?
There is no difference of form and content between the Commisions. After
five years of interparliamentary cooperation, we have been establishing
in-depth relations in spite of the difficulties inherent to several
sensitive matters, notably the Human Rights and the latent conflicts such as
Nagorno-Karabakh one.
We have official meetings twice a year, once in Strasburg, once on the spot.
But we also get to meet with other members of Parliament upon additional
trips. Owing to these regular meetings and my close relationships with the
ambassadors of those three countries, kind of a dynamic has been
established.
In a first time, these three countries were frequently confused. But, we
quickly became aware of the particularities of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia - in spite of all those three countries evolve in a common
geostrategic region. Today, the new neighborhood policy totally
differentiates between those three countries.
Precisely, what was the impact of the new neighborhood policy extended to
the South-Caucasian countries regarding on both the objectives and the room
for manoeuvre of your delegation ?
Before all, I would want to precise that, when the new neighborhood policy
of the European Union was defined, neither the Council nor the Commision
really wished to integrate into it the South-Caucasus countries. Attentive
and sensitive to this, our delegation regularly exerted pressure so as to
add the necessary clauses - notably, the additional clauses to the
Commission of Foreign Affairs.
The Turkish problems also encouraged the ones who foresaw that there might
be a South-Caucasian card to play so as to avoid issues and upcoming
conflicts. That is why they integrated those three countries at the last
minute. But, this only an achievement at the level of the European
Parliament.
But this is just a first step. Indeed, what does this new neighborhood
policy mean as of today ? The EU and the Council do not know it themselves.
There is unavoidably some mistrust. When it presented its policy, the
Council was very careful. Alike the Commission.
I intervened in plenary session when M.Solana was presenting his general
policy so that we carefully take into consideration the three South-Caucasus
countries. Those countries are neighbors of Turkey which asked membership to
EU. Overall they have a European culture and they took the decision to
orient Westward, such as the countries of the former Eastern bloc. Even if
Teheran is closer to Strasburg, the southern Caucasus countries assert
sharing EU's values. Obviously, those countries have also difficulties to
les mettre en place, but maybe one day they will integrate EU ? Our
delegation defends this objective. I believe that EU as much as the Council
got it without willing to admit it.
But, the decision to integrate the three South-Caucasus countries to the new
neighborhood policy has for the time being only theoretical direct
consequences...
Our delegation clearly announced to the Commission, to Solana and to the
Council that it would encourage to set up concrete actions for those three
countries. The Action Plan for Georgia is absolutly mandatory. Saakashvili
publicaly announced, but not yet officialy, that he was in favour of a
future application for EU's membership. We have to live up to his
expectation.
The problems met by those small countries, and that we can solve today,
might increase tomorrow. The faster we will solve those latent conflicts,
the faster EU will strongly commit in this region still stuck between Russia
and the United States. EU is already present, but today a political
commitment is needed.
After having got the nomination of Heikki Talvitie as EU special
representative in South-Caucasus in July 2003, what is your next objective
regarding the still lacking commitment of EU in South-Caucasus?
The Green Party had been demanding for a long time, the nomination of a
special representative for the region. This nomination is very positive,
although a real feuille de route is necessary. I regularly meet with Heikki
Talvitie. He fulfils his task as a coordinator, but this action is still not
enough.
Maybe there should have been one year of adaptation in order to be able to
set up a waybill ?
M.Talvitie wants to wait until the half of his mandate, that is to say still
one year. We think that we have to act today. EU has to demonstrate, by the
voice of M. Talvitie, that it has a political project and is strongly
commited.
EU will most probably not solve those conflicts, but it has to make the
wills focus and to encourage now a plan of action. EU may not be satisfied
with this status quo, since any event could aggravate the situation and make
the conflicts bouncing back.
Your commissions aim to increase the awareness of the three South-Caucasus
countries about key issues such as the democracy, the Civil Society, and the
conflicts-solving. Except the conflicts-solving issue, what are today the
points noirs, or at least the most sensible questions that you would want to
advance?
We have to help those countries on their way for democracy and as regards
several domains : Human Rights, NGOs, political prisoners, etc. For
instance, the last elections in Azerbaijan did not take place according to
the International norms and standards. Southern-Caucasus has to be helped in
its democratic transition. Nevertheless those countries also ask us to be
patient with them.
Is there a concrete advance as regards those matters ?
Baku offered us to visit the jails so as to meet political prisoners. It is
essential. At the same time, we do not want to teach those countries a
lesson when they do not have the same past.
The delegation changed a lot owing to the addition of the ten new Eastern
countries. Not only, members of Parliament demonstrate a real will to put
more effort in South-Caucasus, but there is also an emerging concept of
network. For example, Vytautas Landsbergis, first vice-president of this
delegation who is also an acknowledged and very involved Lithuanian key
figure, has a certain authority. He can go further away in the criticism of
South-Caucasus given that the Baltic countries went trough the same history.
Translated by Marie Anderson
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress