The situation has changed radically in the post-Soviet space

By Vestnik Kavkaza

Almost two weeks have passed since the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius, but experts and politicians continue discussing its results.

The EU program of the Eastern Partnership is aimed at forming closer ties with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldavia, Belarus, and Ukraine; it doesn’t require membership in the EU, but requires a political and economic closening. At the same time, Grigory Trofimchuk, the first vice-president of the Centre of Strategic Development Patterning, believes that “it is dangerous or at least harmful to put economics before politics, because it is politics that determines the economic vector. The economy cannot exist in an empty space without political decisions on steps to take. If a state puts economics before politics, it automatically turns into a technical state which will be used by the states which put politics before economics.”

Trofimchuk thinks that “after the Vilnius summit the situation has changed for the whole post-Soviet space; moreover, it changed radically, crucially. Now we can see what happens when the multi-vector policy of Ukraine, for example, lasts for too long a time. And we can see the result of the multi-vector policy. That’s how a multi-vector policy will end in all countries of the post-Soviet space. I believe that the results of the Vilnius summit are negative for the security of the CIS. We should give the first place to Ukraine in this case. one and a half to two weeks ago the situation seemed to be calm there. Today we can see that nobody needs Ukraine, and a chaotic situation is being established purposely there not only in economics, but first of all in politics.

Georgia and Moldova initialed agreements; it is not an association yet, but the path from these documents to association is short. Moreover, we can see what is going on inside of the Eastern Partnership itself. When Moldova found out that Ukraine had rejected the signing of the association agreement, actually it acted dishonestly and stated that it was ready to take money which had been promised to Ukraine, but it hadn’t received it. They're selling a bearskin before they've caught the bear. The situation is chaotic inside of the Eastern Partnership. I think it is an important moment, a warning sign for everyone else. Europe will put pressure on countries which haven’t made a decision on initialing or signing an association agreement yet, I don’t mention directly joining the European Union.”

Baku has no plans to sign an association agreement with the EU. Oktai Akhverdiyev, Honored Economist of Azerbaijan, the former Minister of Economics, states that “Azerbaijan makes its economic interests the corner-stone of its policy. They say that democracy is good; human rights are even better; but if there is no bread or water in the country – it is much worse. That’s why we have a pragmatic approach to the processes referred to making a choice in favor of Europe or Russia. Azerbaijan made a very wise step, like a truly Eastern country. I mean that our national interests are that we are interesting both to Russia and Europe. That’s why when we plan some projects we always consider what it will give to us.”

Sergei Mikheyev, director of the Institute of Caspian Cooperation, shares Akhverdiyev’s view: “The step which was taken by Baku at the Vilnius summit is quite reasonable. I would say that many countries should follow its example. The passions which reign over the Ukrainian situation were caused by the politicized treatment of signing the document. First of all Europe and a part of the Ukrainian elite stirred up politicization, as it imposed the document with its content on Ukraine. As a result we have a storm in a tea cup. Something is going on, which some people call “a revolution”, over overstated illusions of a part of Ukrainian society. From this point of view, the decision which was made by Azerbaijan is quite sensitive and even optimal for it. Probably the story over Ukraine could be absolutely different if things were not politicized, transferred to a geopolitical space.”

“At the same time, the European orientation of the Azerbaijani economy is obvious. What other markets should Azerbaijan focus on? Of course, on European markets. However, it should be realized that a European orientation in foreign policy and trade with Europe are different things. Vice versa the West would like to see the following tie: we buy your goods, and you follow our recommendations in foreign and internal policies. I think Azerbaijan successfully avoids a strict tie; and it is right. Does it matter who trades with whom? If we look at the Russian trade system, we will see that we sell almost everything to Europe: gas, oil, and other products. And we receive a lot from Europe. But we resist any attempts to influence our foreign and internal political vectors on the ground. I think this is a pragmatic and normal position,” Mikheyev stated.