The 6th Eastern Partnership Summit will take place in Brussels on December 15-16. The fifth one was also held in Brussels in 2017, although summits with the participation of EU heads of state and government and EU member countries and partner countries are to be held every two years. But there was a Covid, and in general, in recent years grave events and serious trials took place in the Eastern Partnership countries.
Azerbaijan and Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine…
Each of the countries had serious challenges, which, in particular, distanced or moved them closer to the Eastern Partnership and the European perspective.
As a result, Belarus officially suspended its participation in the summer and actually got out of the Eastern Partnership. Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine formed their collective opinion about the place and role of their countries in the strategic perspective and formed the “Associative Trio”.
Ukraine’s role in the Eastern Partnership, its key objectives, cooperation and interaction with partner countries in solving problems and responding to the challenges facing the countries of the region and their civil societies were discussed at the public discussion “Ukraine ahead of the Eastern Partnership summit: achievements and challenges”, which took place within the framework of the annual conference of the Ukrainian National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.
Representatives of the Verkhovna Rada and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, the Government Office for Coordination of European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, public organizations and working groups took part in the discussion…
Describing the leitmotif of the discussion, UNP National Coordinator Yuriy Vdovenko said: “Of course, we hoped that after the longtime consultations that took place during the preparation for the summit, more ambitious goals for the Eastern Partnership would be announced, but we must understand that the Eastern Partnership is EU policy, and the European Union offers exactly as much as it can offer… It offers many opportunities, however, today these are not the things that meet Ukraine’s ambitions.”
Speaking on expectations and challenges, the key speakers and disputants relied on a joint working paper adopted by the European Commission in July this year, which became a roadmap for discussion and analysis ahead of the summit.
THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A KEY TRADING PARTNER
– Trade and economic integration is the first thing we expect, – said the first deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Integration of Ukraine with the European Union Vadym Galaychuk. – It is important for us as a country whose key trading partner is the European Union.
He said that most of Ukraine’s proposals is taken into account in the document. But the most important strategic goal – the signing of the agreement on industrial visa-free arrangement is missing, and we do not see a real prospect for resolving this issue in the near future. Although many others, such as the abolition of tariff quotas, have made progress and we hope there will be more.
An important factor is access to financial instruments, to investment, which the EU is ready to offer. For example, additional investments of more than one billion Euros were proposed to Ukraine, in particular, for small farm development.
Regarding the transportation development, the Open Skies Agreement was signed. For the first time, special attention will be paid to the sea transportation development and its safety. The construction and modernization of more than 3,000 kilometers of roads within the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) is provided for. At the same time, the speaker noted that we did not see the inclusion of our inland waterways in TEN-T, which we hoped for. Our proposals for the development of railway connection that would unite European and Asian countries by transport corridors are not reflected in documents. And, as Vadym Galaychuk noted, “the issue of road transport, relevant licenses and quotas remains painful for Ukraine. So far, we have seen very little progress in our readiness to discuss this issue, which is sensitive for EU countries.”
(This issue was repeatedly mentioned in the course of discussions by other participants, recalling border jams, when our carriers do not have enough permits to drive on European roads.)
“Good progress in security issues, but not what we expected: Ukraine’s accession to the EU Cyber Security Agency”, Vadym Galaychuk continued. He also mentioned Ukraine’s significant progress in the digital economy and management.
As well as a huge layer of issues related to ecology and climate change. “We get more and more information about what a new Europe can look like, focused on “greening” the economy”, Vadym Galaychuk said. “In this case, it is very important for Ukraine and other partner countries that Europe sees our countries as part of the European space, not outsiders.”
AND WHAT ABOUT THE STRATEGIC GOAL?
– The new agenda presented by the European Commission takes into account many proposals that have practical features, – said Maryna Mykhaylenko, Director of the EU and NATO Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. – But there is no strategic goal: we would like the Declaration, the summit documents to contain a definition of the strategic goal of the Eastern Partnership countries. And provision of the European perspective for the countries of the “trio” as well. This is the maximum task. However, if we fail to achieve it, we would like to reaffirm our European aspirations and European choice.
The Foreign Ministry representative stressed the importance of continuing the EU-Eastern Partnership or EU-Trio ministerial dialogues in other areas covered by the reforms under the Association Agreements. This includes deepening cooperation in the areas of green and digital transformation, cyber-information cooperation, energy security, and permanent structured cooperation programs.
The Head of the expert group on justice and social and humanitarian issues of the Government Office for Coordination of European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Viktor Steblynenko also spoke about the hope for recognition of the strategic importance of strengthening partnership based on the principle of differentiation and European aspirations of the partners, in the final Declaration of the summit. “The EU must definitely be more open to the Eastern Partnership countries”, he said. “Especially for Ukraine – Georgia – Moldova. It is important that the EU’s “trio” policy includes their European perspectives, integration into the EU’s internal market, security and defense, economy, in particular, digital economy, and health.
“CEMENT” FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY?
Quite unexpectedly, after the generally optimistic speakers, the representative of the public, Serhiy Herasymchuk, a member of the Board of the Strategic and Security Studies Group, spoke:
– If we talk about the Eastern Partnership as an EU initiative, as a political, not a purely technocratic mechanism for working with neighboring countries, I personally associate it with the informal motto of one of the big houses of the “Game of Thrones”, which is as follows: “What’s dead can’t die”, – he said. – That is, the political project may have died before it was born. It was finally buried by the events in Belarus, the hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Indeed, there has recently been a joint working paper on rebuilding sustainability and reforming, and on post-2020 priorities for the benefit of all countries. However, it is not as ambitious as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova hoped. Priorities have already been mentioned today; they are investment support, digital transition, hydrogen efficiency, etc., but as we see from these documents, the EU’s behavior is essentially cementing one of the neighborhood policy instruments that does not include the strategic goals of the future Eastern Partnership. The documents do not answer the question of how to reform the Eastern Partnership, but it needs to be reborn, otherwise we turn a blind eye to the fact that the initiative has changed de facto. This time has become a time of building careers, mastering huge budgets, but without a strategic goal there will be no desired results.
Serhiy Herasymchuk said that the study conducted about a year ago showed that the EU has no desire to join the security issues that concern all Eastern Partnership countries. Partner countries lack political donors: while at the stage of forming the alliance it was Poland, Sweden, to some extent Germany, now, given the domestic situation, few have the will to lobby the interests of the Eastern Partnership countries at the European level, and those who lobby are underweight for this.
He also addressed the theme of relations between the “trio” countries: at the European level they speak with one voice, but they have “questions, problems and complications” between them. (During the discussion, Maryna Mykhaylenko responded to this accusation: bilateral relations, of course, are not linear, but the areas where our interests coincide are outlined, and this is decisive).
The member of the public also said that in preparing the document for the summit, they considered three possible scenarios for Ukraine in the context of the Eastern Partnership. The first one will be implemented if the EU supports the “trio”. The second is “Ukraine’s radical refusal to work in the Eastern Partnership and its focusing on the Association Agreement and its implementation”. And the third one is a combination: we stay in the Eastern Partnership and demand differentiation for the “trio”. The first scenario is the most positive, the third one is the optimal.
Scenarios have also been developed for the Eastern Partnership itself. There were four of them. The first scenario is pragmatic (and this is what is set out in the working paper under discussion): we integrate where we can, but it is not about the prospect of membership.
The second is the “emancipation of civil society”: it is already integrated, and it could “clarify” the strategic vision of the Eastern Partnership. However, the third and fourth options cannot be ruled out, namely, the “EU turn to Russia” or the growing pressure from Russia and the events that may follow. Therefore, according to the public, it is necessary to work with the “trio”, to develop bilateral relations and civil society, because it is able to lead to the best results. Continue to “beat this rock”!
DISCUSSION AS SUCH
The discussion covered many issues that were and were not raised by the speakers. Their essence was that it was difficult to expect breakthrough results from the summit, but the fact that European leaders praised the role of the Associative Trio in their statements during the recent EU-Ukraine summit, was a hope to move towards a strategic goal. More progress can be expected from the “pragmatic goals”: an ambitious EU investment plan in developing business initiative, “green” economy, supporting small and medium enterprises, digitalization, lifting tariff restrictions, updating the annexes to the articles of the main document on the association. Safety issues come to the fore. And environmental problems as well.
Ruslan Gavrylyuk, a member of the UNP’s steering committee, recalled that at the June ministerial meeting on the environment and climate change, Frans Timmermans, vice-president of the European Commission, said: Don’t focus on the Eastern Partnership or association, develop the “green” economy and have a chance of full integration. But the green course is a source of challenges, in addition to opportunities. Without working on its implementation, the gap between us and the EU can be further deepened.
DOES SCIENCE STAY AWAY?
And what about the science, which should be the main driver of progressive changes in all the above problems? Especially when it’s about the “green course” in the economy? Unfortunately, science was not discussed at all during this long and serious discussion, except for the participation at the end of the discussion of the President of the European Innovation Agency, participant in the negotiation procedure for Ukraine’s participation in Horizon Europe Ivan Kulchytsky; he stressed the need to combine global goals with sectoral policies and to finance research centers.
Obviously, science did not sound not only because the speakers focused on other topics or were experts in other matters. Rather, the habit of “doing without” science worked where it is believed that it can be “settled” by other methods. It was not very effective before. But now, when we are on the verge of such global challenges, it is impossible at all. Otherwise, we will have to flee after Europe for too long.
Larysa OSTROLUTSKA