Conference on how to improve the European Neighbourhood Policy

Panel 1: The state of the art of the ENP: analysis and assessment of concepts and developments
Keynote speaker Petr Kratochvil (Deputy Director Institute of International Relations, Prague) addressed four main questions. Is the Eastern Partnership Program (EPP) a part or replacement of the ENP; what is the relation of the EPP to other regional initiatives; what can the EPP deliver and is the EPP potentially a long-lasting project or a short-lived initiative? His main conclusions were that EPP has the potential to become the main channel of EU projects, but that it will remain a soft policy that will not be able to engage directly with issues like frozen conflicts or the relations with Russia.

Second speaker, Krassimir Nikolov (Secretary General of the Bulgarian European Community Studies Association) discussed the concept of joint ownership, which is understood differently on the EU side and on the partner side (mainly process-oriented vs. content-oriented respectively). He also discussed the shift from a transformational approach to cooperation approach; i.e. when you don’t try to change the partner but accept them as they are and try to cooperate as best you can. Mr Nikolov also expressed the opinion that it was a mistake to compare the early stages of the ENP to the late stages of enlargement (pre-accession). That it is in fact more similar to the early stage: association. However, a comment from a participant followed that even the association stage already presupposes the fact that the given country will be granted EU membership sooner or later, whereas the ENP does not.

The last speaker of the panel, Viorel Ursu (senior Policy Officer of the Open Society Institute, Brussels) started out by saying that his organization works in almost all EPP countries where it uses EU pressure and conditionality to stimulate civil society and human rights development. He stated that the EPP has an added value as it puts more weight on the partnership and separates the southern and the eastern directions. It also marks functional step-by-step integration. However, Mr Ursu noted that the EU conditionality needs more incentives apart from the big one (i.e. membership), like visa facilitation. He also made some suggestions as to how the EU could do a better job: currently the EU lacks a democracy acquis: if we ask for democratic development we should define it better, as the current EU language is very vague. The EU should also use the other carrots besides from membership.

Panel 2: Changing the perspective: the ENP from the Eastern partner countries’ view.
The second panel discussed the views of the Eastern European partner countries, represented in the panel by Iryna Solonenko (Director of the European Program at the International Renaissance Foundation, Kiev), Iulian Groza (Minister-Counsellor at the Mission of the Republic of Moldova to the European Communities) and Giselle Bosse (Assistant Professor at the Political Science Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Maastricht).

The panel’s first speaker, Ms Solonenko, spoke about the situation in Ukraine. She mentioned some disappointment and disillusionment in Ukraine concerning the EPP as it does not present anything new in bilateral terms. In terms of possible prospects she mentioned a visa-free regime with the EU, but there is no clarity on the time frame. Concerning ENP’s impact in Ukraine, she mentioned there was not much, as the democratic progress is not major. However, EU policy did have an impact on the bureaucracy and civil society in the country. What’s missing and what’s needed according to her is more of an EU commitment to support the civil society and a road map for the visa-free regime. Another shortcoming of the EPP is the lack of its dealing with Russia, which is still a major factor in the region. She also argued for a more developed short-term approach.

Mr Groza spoke about Moldova’s attitude. According to him the country is very much ready to participate and contribute to the dialogue. He considered a EPP success that the partner countries are no longer perceived and referred to as ‘neighbours’ but as ‘partners’. Mr Groza also mentioned a Russian initiative that is a counterbalance to EPP: Ros Sotrudnichestvo (‘Russian partnership’).

Ms Bosse then discussed Belarus. She stated that the EU approach doesn’t seem to have an immediate impact as imposing conditions is simply not accepted by the Belarus ruling elites. ENP is perceived as in the interest of the EU and the EU is perceived as a threat to the social policies of the current Belarus regime, as it is believed that the EU wants less state involvement. She also mentioned that the Belarus regime feels neglected, as most attention from the EU goes to the Belarus civil society and opposition.

Panel 3: Conclusions: From analysis and assessment to policy advice
The Third and final panel concluded the conference with assessment and recommendations that were voiced by speakers Sieglinde Gstöhl (Professor of EU Internatinoal Relations and Diplomacy Studies Department at the College of Europe, Bruge), Egidio Canciani (Deputy Head of the ENP General Coordination Unit, European Commission), Elmar Brok (MEP European People’s Party, Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs) and Hannes Swoboda (MEP S&D, member of the Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly).

Recommendations included: for the EU to take its own conditionality seriously, especially when it comes to human rights issues, to endorse common values for the sake of credibility in the region, and with regards to frozen conflicts, to bring Russia back into the dialogue as its absence is a problem. On this last point there were some disagreements, however, the majority opinion was one of inclusion. It was also mentioned that working around the frozen conflicts is not enough, and maybe the EU needs to develop a way of engaging with the problems more directly.