The summit held for the participants of the European Eastern Partnership programme in Warsaw didn’t fulfil the expectations of the initiators or the heads of the countries. Attempts by the Polish authorities to moralize to Belarus, showing their regional importance to Western Europe, faced a negative reaction from Georgia and Azerbaijan, which play their own game with Minsk. This episode confirmed the failure of any integration efforts (based on common values, for example) by different former Soviet Union states, as their elites think only about their own interests and consider EU projects only through this perspective.
Thus, the Warsaw summit couldn’t answer major questions: when will negotiations, if any, on establishing a free trade zone and visa-free regime between the EU and the participants of the programme begin? Brussels demonstrates a diversified approach (sometimes based on double standards), which doesn’t seem attractive to some participants of the programme. For example, Ukraine cannot count on negotiations on associate membership. As for Georgia, the EU doesn’t guarantee it even a dialogue on a free trade zone. However, the fact that Europe doesn’t make the same demands on Ukraine provides reasons for Georgian politicians to believe that Brussels is silently hinting that negotiations will be started after Georgia gives permission for Russian membership in the WTO.
Of course, the deep European crisis was reflected at the Warsaw summit. However, the crisis is not a surprise for the experts, who 10-12 years ago warned about a system conflict if a common currency is launched without delegation of full powers of the states to the centre in the sphere of budgetary and financing policy. VK interviewed well-known Georgian experts on international affairs in the context of these problems, considering the interests of Georgia and its relations with Europe.
Ramaz Sakvaralidze, political scientist and social psychologist:
The Eastern Partnership programme provoked scepticism before the Warsaw summit. Of course, partnership is a good ideal, but in our region, in the Caucasus, there are three unsettled conflicts: the Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts. It is not clear what the meaning of the notion 'partnership' is in this case. Some people in Europe even suggested involving separatist regions in the programme, to improve European orientation in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Of course, they mean involving them without recognition of their independence, but such a situation is unacceptable for Georgia and Azerbaijan. What about the scale and principles of cooperation? Is it fair to apply one approach to Georgia and Armenia, considering Armenia is oriented towards Russia rather than the EU?
Without any doubt, it would be unnatural and wrong to refuse to participate in the programme because of the existing problems. The Eastern Partnership is developing rapidly, but effectively or not - we cannot say. Of course, the financial crisis in Europe will require adjustments to the programme. A free trade zone with the EU is discussed in Georgia, but the economic weakness of our country prevents us from exploiting the potential of the project in full. Georgia and the US already have such a beneficial regime, but we cannot see big advantages from it, as the export potential of Georgia is low.
The second issue is a visa-free regime with the EU. For Georgia, this means a growth in migration, which is already huge. The problem should also be addressed from the Europeans’ point of view. We remember highly critical statements on migration by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The same attitude are often expressed by the authorities of France. So Europe will be very careful in issues which can cause a growth in migration from other countries.
Recently the US President criticized the European economic model, as Europe is late to react to economic challenges. I think the current European social and political structure is very difficult to manage in all spheres. A common currency is an attribute of solid sovereign statehood rather than of a mosaic union of separate countries.
This contradiction is probably caused by the dollar paradox, as the dollar is the currency of one state, but in reality it is an international currency. The Europeans tried to balance dollar with their own currency, but the US is one state, and improving the euro's competitiveness is difficult, as it is the currency of dozens of countries. American states cannot form their budget policy without coordinating with Washington, whereas European countries are sovereign states with their own financial policies.
Today Europe faces very a tough dilemma: it should continue integration and become a federation or admit that the European Union project has failed.
What is more beneficial for Georgia? I think a united stable Europe is more favorable for us and for the whole world. If united Europe collapses, Georgia will have only one alternative, the USA. If the European project succeeds, there will be two centers of power. More alternatives are better.
David Darchiashvili, parliament deputy, one of the leaders of the ruling party, the United National Movement:
The financial problems are serious, they influence the situation in general. However, political priorities demand attention be paid to the programme of Eastern Partnership from Europe. The Warsaw summit proved this. Moreover, I believe that the European economy is strong enough to overcome any difficulties.
Georgy Khukhashcili, independent expert:
As far as I know, the summit in Warsaw was planned last year. It was held as of secondary importance. I didn’t expect any specific decisions from it. The typical phrase of “opened doors” was repeated, but no serious decisions were made. The reason is that Europe has its own problems. They understand that the Eastern Partnership project should be frozen, but they want to do it with dignity.
Is it beneficial for Georgia to have a free trade zone with the EU? Our country has low export potential. It will lose its goods’ competitiveness. Maybe orientation towards Europe is the right choice from a long-term perspective, but today it will bring more disadvantages than positive aspects.
Georgy Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively to VK.
