Stefan Meister: "The European Union has no proper strategy in the region"

A research fellow of the Center for the Study of Central and Eastern Europe of the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stefan Meister, gives an interview to the head of the VK European office, Orhan Sattarov. We publish its third part , in which he talks about the role of the EU in the Caucasus.

- What can you say about the prospects of EU influence in the South Caucasus? Will the EU increase its activity and presence in our region?

- We are very actively presented in the region, and the Caucasus plays a certain role in EU policy. All three South Caucasian states are members of the European Neighbourhood Policy, as well as of the Eastern Partnership, in the framework of which various programs are implemented in these countries. The EU and its members are actively involved in the conflict over Georgia ... In this regard, we are on the right track, and we can say that our involvement in regional processes is generally increasing. At the moment, we are revising the

European Neighbourhood Policy, there are new proposals both regarding the Eastern Partnership and the European Neighboruhood Policy. It reflects upon all the issues which we consider to be important, not for the first year: strong support for civil society, greater economic activity, intensification of negotiations on association agreements, free trade agreements, etc. At the same time it includes proposals of the Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski to establish the European Endowment for Peace, as well as a series of measures to promote democracy, support small and medium-sized businesses and issue credits - everything that experts have been talking about for so many years already.

I was pleasantly surprised when I read this document (the Commission's proposal to reform the European Neighbourhood Policy; the document can be found on the website of the European Commission). It recognizes

objective shortcomings, and gives at least a rhetorical reaction to it. The realization is still under an open question, and I must admit I am sceptical regarding it.

In my opinion, the EU is now busy with its internal problems. I am talking about problems associated with domestic reforms and the crisis of the euro, the search for EU development directions, its aspirations and objectives meant to support its existence in one form or another. If we look at the Lisbon Treaty and its implementation, then, in my opinion, it becomes clear that EU foreign policy with its foreign service has become only weaker. I hope that this will change, but right now our foreign policy is "reactive" in nature, whereas we lack active policy. For example, the document on reforming the European Neighbourhood Policy program, which I praised above, does not assign the EU a role in resolving regional conflicts. For the post-Soviet republics, as well as North African states, these issues are fundamental. The solution of conflicts must become one of the pillars of the neighbourhood policy. A more active involvement in conflict resolution is a key point. It seems to me that the neighbourhood policy cannot only deal with the promotion of democratic development and market economy, and not engage with conflict resolution in the region. All these components must be interconnected. There are a couple of far-sighted politicians, such as former German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Gernot Erler. Concepts including the so-called "Stability Pact for the South Caucasus" have been developed. But, due to a relative lack of interest and congestion of the EU foreign policy, I do not expect a breakthrough or major changes in the near future. Certain projects will continue to exist, new EU member states, insisting on strengthening relations with such states as Georgia which want to join the EU, will appear. But I do not believe in the realization of enormous projects and strategies for the Caucasus.

- As you have noted, the key point of the conflict resolution is not provided by the neighbourhood policy. But under such conditions, EU criticism on issues of democracy, say, in Baku, will not be taken seriously. Europe massively criticizes Azerbaijan for violating the rights of two or three human right activists but does not pay any attention to a million refugees, whose rights are being violated. And it seems like double standards ...

- Alas, this is the case ... the EU is often simply not visible in those countries. It gives too little support to groups which could become partners and agents of its interests in the region. And we have interests in the region, although we do not say this out loud, but we do have them. Europe is leading a dual game here: on the one hand, it cooperates with the elites, and on the other hand it criticizes them.

The EU presence remains invisible to people, they see no interest in their problems, conflict, refugees, although the money is allocated and some assistance is provided. But at the same time, the EU does not have a strategy aimed at linking together all these measures, and communication with people is fully provided by governments, who benefit from it themselves, particularly to justify their own mistakes and shortcomings. We could have a long argument on the extent of the support provided by the EU to the Azerbaijani government, whether this is because of the energy issue, when criticizing President Ilham Aliyev not as strongly as, for example, Lukashenko. Although, of course, these are two different cases which cannot be compared. But the fact remains that various EU countries have different interests, and the result is a cacophony of European politics. If we look at what is happening in Georgia, we see that Saakashvili is now also heavily criticized. Saakashvili has not led Georgia to democratization. Yes, he has stabilized state institutions and society, strengthened the state as a whole. But if you look at what's happening with the media, the pressures exerted on the opposition, amendments to the laws, it will become obvious to you that Saakashvili has not democratized the country. And all of these problems should certainly be dealt with.

- That is, issues of democracy are introduced to the game only when they correspond to certain political reasons?

- This question is difficult to answer unequivocally; I think there are countries in Europe which prioritize these issues. On paper, it plays a central role for the EU - democracy, market economy and the like. But during negotiations of the EU with other countries, these moments fade into the background, Europe is not committed to its own standards. In my view, this is due to the absence of a common EU position on the existence of different interests within it, and at the same time, to the lack of faith in the possibility of exercising

sufficient influence in order to achieve these objectives. Therefore, the EU does not dare and or cannot introduce any sanctions. The EU has so to speak a certain problem with "self-conceptualization" and there is no strategy which could answer the question: what do we actually want from our neighbours?

We do lack debates concerning possible interests in neighbouring countries, and strategies we ought to use. Of course, it is difficult to consolidate the interests of different states, but as long as we do not initiate discussions on this topic and do not define our priorities, these non-transparent policies are unlikely to change.

Orhan Sattarov, head of European Bureau of the VK