SPES Policy Papers

The EU’s policy towards Azerbaijan: what role for civil society?

Katrin Böttger/Mariella Falkenhain

June 2011

The Study Programme on European Security (SPES) has been supported by the Volkswagen Foundation. This support is gratefully acknowledged. About the authors

Dr. Katrin Böttger is deputy director of the Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP) Berlin, where she is a member of the Project Team for the Research Project „The EU-relations with the eastern neighbours – between Neighbourhood and Enlargement Policy”. Her main fields of research are the European Neighbourhood Policy/Eastern Partnership, EU Central Asia Policy and EU enlargement.

Mariella Falkenhain has worked as research associate and scientific coordinator of the Study Programme on European Security, at the IEP since 2008. Her fields of expertise include the European Neighbourhood Policy, as well as German and French European policy.

About IEP

Since 1959, the Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP) has been active in the field of European integration as a non-profit organisation. It is one of Germany’s leading research institutes on foreign and European policy. The IEP works at the interface of academia, politics, administration, and civic education. In doing so, the IEP’s task include scientific analyses of problems surrounding European politics and integration, as well as promotion of the practical application of its research findings. www.iep-berlin.de

About SPES Policy Papers

The electronic collection “SPES Policy Papers“ is dedicated to issues of current and future relevance to European foreign and security policy. Written by grantholders of the Study Programme on European Security (SPES) for fellows from Central and Eastern Europe – conducted by IEP and supported by the Volkswagen Foundation – as well as researchers from IEP, the papers focus on four thematic clusters:

• The EU and Russia • European Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy • The EU’s civilian and military crisis management • European energy policy and climate change policy

Against the background that the scientific debate on European foreign and security policy is often dominated by Western perspectives, this paper series stands out by providing a platform for alternative viewpoints that focus on external perceptions and assessments of EU policies, actions and discourses.

This paper, like all publications in this series, represents only the views of its author. Copyright of this paper series is held by the Institut für Europäische Politik.

ISSN 2191-0006

Editorial Team

Publisher: Prof. Dr. Mathias Jopp, Director, Institut für Europäische Politik

Executive Editor: Mariella Falkenhain, Research Associate and SPES project coordinator, Institut für Europäische Politik

Area experts: Dr. Elfriede Regelsberger, Deputy Director, Institut für Europäische Politik Editorial area: European Foreign and Security Policy

Dr. Katrin Böttger, Deputy Director, Institut für Europäische Politik Editorial area: European Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy

Layout: Matthias Jäger, Institut für Europäische Politik SPES Policy Papers 2011 3 We would like to thank the Volkswagen Foundation as well as the Otto Wolff-Foundation for their for their Wolff-Foundation well as the Otto Foundation as Volkswagen to thank the would like We thank to like would we In addition, publication. for this research the do us to has enabled support which our interview partners in Baku and Berlin for their contribution to and interest for our project. Special thanks go to Iryna Solonenko and Eva-Maria Maggi for their comments on an earlier version we would like to thank Mirjam Schmid and Dorothee Pätzold of for their Finally, editorial support, paper. this Martine for Perry English and proofreading, Gabriel VanLoozen and Matthias Jäger for the layout and of this publication. the technical realisation Acknowledgments

SPES Policy Papers 2011 5 9 3 7 9 11 10 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 20 22 24 17 13 Taking a closer look: civil societies’ role as formulated in implementation instruments role as formulated in a closer look: civil societies’ Taking partner Civil society as a weak implementing of European values and principles? Civil society as an (unpleasant) promoter society through funding? Operational aspects: empowering civil partner demanding concrete strengthening measures weak implementing A rather than EU values Civil society as promoter of European civil society Funding not the master key to empower The political relations between the EU and Azerbaijan: a relation based on oil? Azerbaijan: a relation and The political relations between the EU The political relations between the EU and Azerbaijan as seen by the political actors involved Azerbaijan as seen and The political relations between the EU policy goals including the role of values The ENP: general of EU foreign policy? Civil society: an agent Civil society in Azerbaijan: a willing but critical reform partner Azerbaijan: a willing but critical reform Civil society in The EU in Azerbaijan: civil society assistance as a tightrope walk for the EU Azerbaijan: civil society assistance as a The EU in Conclusions and recommendations Bibliography III II Acknowledgments Introduction I official discourse The Table of Contents Table 6 SPES Policy Papers 2011 SPES Policy Papers 2011 7 keeping a non-democratic regime keeping a non-democratic de facto It may be argued that states which are not that states which are not It may be argued strategy/doc/2011_01_13_joint_declaration_southern_corridor. pdf, accessed 1 March 2011; see also “Barroso tops deal Azeri gas with visa facilitation.”, available com/en/energy/barroso-tops-azeri-gas-deal-visa-facilitation- at: http://www.euractiv. news-501255, accessed 23 January 2011. in Azerbaijan seem other the with relations its to compared difference to present an EU is, and the that importance The countries. ENP important is assessed to these interests attaching should be, some Whereas experts. and scholars by differently stress that Azerbaijan’s energy resources are and cooperation of West for the strategic importance (Meister should be strengthened sector in the 2010), others criticise the for EU’s energy policy alive (Jobelius 2010: 5). Instead of resources on the energy focusing cooperation exclusively should West the that argued is it country, the of upon democratic imports conditional make energy reform (Askarov 2010: the affects only not country energy-rich this of 9). The ‘uniqueness’ EU’s policy but also the demand for cooperation on the part of national elites. High oil revenues, coupled with the growing self-confidence of the political elites in Azerbaijan and influence from theWest, resistance reduce the potential to for reform and thus and democratic transformation have implications for the EaP. and the foreign policy goals set by the ENP achievement of EU or trade- dependent on the EU for security related reasons have little to no ambition to make the EU’s normative ideas their 2008). own Instead of (Bendiek analysing Azerbaijan’s (non-) and compliance with policy propositions paper focuses norms promoted by the EU, this instead on the EU’s normative and that international actors on the argument agenda. Based type tend to spread their own organisations of system in order to be able to cooperate with actors with similar 2008: 34), it is value generally assumed that the EU’s patterns foreign policy follows internal value patterns and (Essouso transfers these to its external paper critically analyses dimension. to what extent This the EU’s normative agenda is pursued and implemented in the Azerbaijan. case Special of emphasis is given to views and attitudes of EU officials involved in Azerbaijan. in the implementation of the ENP

5 The most 1 and its and 2 . least likely cases and the Eastern Partnership 3 , the EU’s energy-related interests 4 Azerbaijan’s Azerbaijan’s democratic performance For more on the notion of Morlino 2008. ‘hybrid regimes’ see for instance The Freedom House Index, which combines political rights and civil liberties, rated Azerbaijan as “partly free” and 2003 and between as “not free” from 2004 to 2010. 1997 Comparative and historical data of the Freedom House Index is available at: http:// www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=439, accessed Azerbaijan for Report Country House Freedom The 2011. January 10 (2010) is available at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cf m?page=22&year=2010&country=7775, accessed 10 2011. January Since 2004, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is the framework for the EU’s relations with its eastern and southern neighbours. In 2005, after the ‘Rose in Revolution’ Georgia and (concerning conflicts frozen the of awareness increasing an to due all region, the in Nagorno-Karabakh) and Ossetia South Abkhazia, three countries of the Southern Caucasus – Armenia, Azerbaijan – were included in the ENP. and Georgia was agreed which framework policy is a Partnership Eastern The upon by the 27 EU member states and the six Eastern neighbours Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine on 7 May, 2009 in Prague. It includes bilateral and multilateral instruments to open up a new phase in the relations between the EU its Eastern neighbours. Cooperation in the energy The “Memorandum of understanding signed in 2006. energy, sector includes a partnership on a strategic partnership between the European Union and the on http:// at: available is energy” of field the in Azerbaijan of Republic ec.europa.eu/energy/international/international_cooperation/ doc/mou_azerbaijan_en.pdf, accessed 1 corridor gas southern on the declaration joint a 2011, early December 2010. In has been signed. See “Joint Declaration Corridor”, on available at: the http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/ Southern Gas possession of large amounts of energy resources of energy amounts possession of large it is While case. interesting it an especially make included in the ENP 1 2 3 4 5 (EaP) The popular uprisings violence election and 2011 early in neighbourhood in policy the EU’s the tested 2010 EU’s December in Belarus in Southern regimes and those in the towards non-democratic autocracy. and democracy between zone grey Introduction potential of the European Neighbourhood Policy Neighbourhood European the of potential rights, human democracy, (ENP) to promote has so far Europe Eastern of law in rule the and mainly been analysed by the cases, likely Ukraine and example Moldova being the most of neighbourhood Eastern EU’s the in ones prominent al. et Gawrich 2010; Wichmann 2010; (Solonenko EU’s the analysing By 2009). al. et Freyburg 2009; policy towards Azerbaijan, this paper contributes to the debate about the EU’s neighbourhood regimes in its Eastern authoritarian engagement with and thus the study of 8 SPES Policy Papers 2011 6 can countonitssupport. it whether and partner reform a as society civil analyses whethertheEUseespotentialof 43-44; paper This 2009: 2005). Schimmelfennig/Sedelmeier (Magen/Morlino interests and objectives political their with agree that actors they cooperatewithreform-mindeddomestic more are actors Several successful intriggeringdemocraticchangeif external society. that power argue civil scholars of in outside notably found structures, be to have change weak politicalopposition),supportersofpolicy veto-players, as elites political (e.g. reforms of countries In where domesticstructuresdecreasethelikeliness reforms. democratic advocate to potential reformpartnersoftheEU,whoareable nAebia egg i te mlmnain of implementation the in engage Azerbaijan in working actors EU which by means the Second, civil of society withintheframeworkofENP. conceptualisation EU’s the is emphasis on Special placed reviewed. are – ENP the official by documents issuedintheformulationphaseof revealed as – ENP the of rationale point. comprehensive civil society inclusion is a case in implements theminconsistently. The lackofa EU the Azerbaijan in pursues the ENP goals only partially and that argues paper The society? civil in notably Azerbaijan, in resonate (2) HowdoENP goalsandtheirimplementation formulation? its match in ENPAzerbaijan the of implementation the Does (1) questions: research reform possible partners, the paper finds answers and to the following agenda normative EU’s eulc f zrajn n/r te salsae oa donors) were interviewed. local small-scale other and/or Azerbaijan of Republic the of President the under Organizations Non-Governmental to Support State of Council the donors, international other EU, the by funded mainly (i.e. sources funding and activities) umbrella with different foci (i.e. humanrights,legal support, media and collect to order organisations society civil In of representatives viewpoints, diverse Azerbaijan. in organisations society civil seven of leaders with Affairs as well Foreign as Azerbaijan, of of Republic the of Ministry donor the international of theservants civil of community, actors other Azerbaijan, to Union in June2010withemployeesoftheDelegation of theEuropean Baku in conducted were interviews semi-structured 14 total, In An additionalandrelatedaspectconcerns Focusing onboththeimplementationof n h frt at f h ppr h goals and the the paper of part first the In 6

Azerbaijan. target groupandapotentialagentofchangein a both as society civil to goals its communicate in actors society civil order tounderstandwhethertheEUisable of perceptions the on democratisation process isanalysed. Third, thepaperfocuses Azerbaijan’s and ENP the of implementation the both in society civil of role pursue the ENP goals and how they assess the they which to extent The discussed. are ENP the SPES Policy Papers 2011 9 within the within More concretely, concretely, More 7 is consistently employed in is consistently employed in differentiation The promotion of values beyond the EU’s Several examples illustrate this point: “security and prosperity (European continent” of the EU, partners and indeed the entire out set “as values italics); authors´ 2; 2008: Commission Commission (European rights” of fundamental EU in the Charter 2003: 4; authors´ italics). the ENP seems to be built on the assumption that assumption that seems to be built on the the ENP and the respect for human democratic reforms security, rights and the rule of law will bring and peace to the neighbouring countries, stability, founded and as was the case for those states that holds As Magen puts it, the ENP joined the EU. the source of “European integration itself to be regional security” (Magen 2006: 401). feature unique a not is above, described as borders, EaP, the that surprising not is it While ENP. the of between aimed at strengthening the relations pursues the EU and its Eastern neighbours, very similar objectives (European Commission 2008a), the EU has replicated and standardised range wide a to instruments and goals policy entire globe of policy frameworks across the (Börzel/Risse 2009: 24). This “one size fits all” approach (Börzel/Pamuk/Stahn 2009) seems practices to and values different for space little leave democratic Western in countries that are far from however, , The key word differentiation statehood. appeared in official EU documents recently. The EU seeks to achieve the above-mentioned policy goals by means of a “country-specific approach” (European Commission 2007a), “performance- driven” and “tailor-made assistance” of the European Union 2007), and a “more for (Council more” approach (European Commission 2007a: 2). It remains to be seen whether the notion of practice. A question that is especially interesting in the case of Azerbaijan is how exactly local 7 political values to be projected beyond the EU’s democracy and law, the rule of borders include line governance. In as well as good human rights, EU seeks to project assumption that the with the identity as and foundations its own conceptual a value-based actor to its scholars have external agreed that the dimension, ENP is one of the EU’s most obvious attempts to do Risse so 2009; Magen 2006; (Börzel/ Kelley 2006). Indeed, are ENP the of goals the documents official the in EU. the to back traced explicitly The ENP The is ENP also about own the security- EU’s From the very beginning it has also been This chapter identifies the rationale general of goals the and ENP, documents, as before tracing revealed the EU’s by attempts to official and achieve its main goals by improve this policy other than political elites, including local actors specific instruments Finally, notably civil society. to determine what role they are analysed in order foresee for civil society in the Azerbaijan in particular. and countries in general, Eastern partner policy goals including the The ENP: general of values role Since European leaders the creation informally of a new neighbourhood initiative – discussed – that should echo the success later called ENP of enlargement policy new policy continued to stress that the aim of this in 2002, stability and framework should be to “promote they have new borders” prosperity within and beyond the while circumventing the dividing lines emergence in Europe” (European Commission of “new 2003). After the official inception of the ENP in 2004, the European Commission specified that the overarching goals of this policy well-being and security “stability, strengthening consist in 2004a). for all concerned” (European Commission the of inclusion the Notably, interests. related three South Caucasian states in the ENP in 2005 frozen the to attention increasing EU’s the proved conflicts in the region and related concerns for its own security (European Parliament 2003a, b; Wolczuk 2003). For instance, more that a European Commission argued in 2006 the proactive engagement in conflict management in the Southern Caucasus is necessary as the frozen conflicts may produce the EU, such as illegal immigration, unreliable “major spillovers for energy supplies, environmental degradation and terrorism” (European Commission 2006a: 2). repeatedly stated that the neighbourhood policy is based on shared values (GAERC 2007; European Commission 2004; European Commission 2003; The 2003). Union European the of Council I The official discourse 10 SPES Policy Papers 2011 8 2008a; EuropeanCommission2006b). Union European the of (Council visibility EU of promoter a of role the assigned was society civil pre-condition fortheirsuccess.Inthisregard, of theEUanditspoliciesinregionisa understanding positive a that recognised was it Finally,2008a). Union European the of (Council and values” that may be facilitated by civil society principles “shared of promotion the to given was (European Commission 2006b). Special emphasis in thedemocratisationprocesses,wasrecognised fundamental freedoms,whichmakesitakeyagent and rights human defend 2007a; to potential society’s civil Commission Moreover, 2006a). Commission European (European initiatives regional and national of development the as well the implementationofENP Action Plans,as of legislation,thepromotionandmonitoring in theentirereformprocess,i.e.preparation stakeholders become should actors society Civil society actorsarecrucialtoimplementthepolicy. civil that emphasised was 117),it 2010: (Böttger included intheformulationphaseofENP Commission 2006a). Although theywerenot European Union 2008a; GAERC 2007; European to ensurethesuccessofENP (Councilofthe elites political than other actors involve to need (European Commission2006b),highlightedthe official the EuropeanCommissioninDecember2006 Several goals. documents, startingwithaNon-paperissuedby ambitious EU’s the achieve to sufficient not was governments with the EUinstitutionsrecognisedthatcooperation neighbours, Eastern EU’s the of transformation progress first the reports showeditslimitedimpactonthe which in year the and ENP In 2006,twoyearsafter theinceptionof Civil society:anagentofEUforeign policy? respect forvalues. the Easternpartnersismadeconditionalupon and to what extent the ambition of the EU towards consideration into taken are values and practices institutionalised attempttoempowerEastern is lessrelevantforthetopicanalysed andthusneglectedhere. it of Azerbaijan, case the in discussed (controversially) latter be could the Although resolution. in conflict actor in important and policies an sectoral as described is society civil Moreover, The EaP Civil Society Forum (CSF), the first the (CSF), Forum Society Civil EaP The 8

and theEU society civil organisations (CSOs) of the EaP partner countries among and networking elites political encouraging and society civil between uoen ii society civil European 13 12 11 10 9 or practical difficulties such as limited access as limited such difficulties government, practical the or with relationship defective a its neighbourhoodfacecertainproblems,e.g. in societies civil that admits EU the documents, official by revealed as Although, foreign policy. is mainlyconceptualisedasanagentofEU the of achievement society civil the policies, neighbourhood its of goals and EU the to relate visibility) EU and values common of promoter and partner, implementing as society (civil roles possible is actors society civil of participation system (i.e.byaskingwhethertheunimpeded an indicatorfortheopennessofpolitical as serve can forum the view, their In societycrucial. is civil with cooperation Azerbaijan, and democratisation are(most)atrisk,i.e.Belarus in thecountrieswherehumanrightsand especially that CSF state 2010, November the second in meeting hosted which Office, Foreign For Federal CSF. German the the of representatives to instance, importance great attach also officials, learn that restrictions ofpolitical restrictions freedoms arecostly. that learn officials, in thepartnercountriesmay, accordingtoGerman civil society in the public sphere, the governments with cooperation this out carrying by Moreover, Waldner2009). EU Ferrero- and 2009; Commission goals (European visibility policy based value EU’s the of and akeytothesuccessofEaP, aspromoter society isdescribedasanimplementingpartner

August 2010. Interview with civil servants in the Federal Foreign Office, Berlin, not necessarily resultfromanopenpolitical system. do CSF the in representatives society civil of performance good and however,participation shows, that case Belarusian The 2009). and opening of Youth Programme in Action programme” (European Commission Culture from specific and benefit programme, cooperation “will organisations society cross-border and Development Regional Pilot of implementation civil addition, In information: concrete more http://www.eap-csf.eu/, accessed1March2011. gives CSF the of Homepage The the ENP (Jünemann2003). of dimension Southern the in made been have attempts Similar Given that all three of the recurring assigned recurring the of three all that Given 10 , mirrors these assigned roles. Civil roles. assigned these mirrors , 11 Some of the EU member states member EU the of Some 13

9 by facilitating dialogue 12 ). ). SPES Policy Papers 2011 11

16 civil society as an agent of of as an agent of civil society The concept However, civil society is not only described Interestingly, Interestingly, the EU describes Azerbaijan’s state of democracy and the objectives of its democratisation process very positively. the in plays democratisation role a how marginal indicates This EU’s overall policy towards Azerbaijan Not (Beichelt surprisingly, the 2007: over-optimistic language 14). used by the EU 16 specific objectives, expected results and possible indicators of achievement programmes. thematic more clearly than in both policy continues to resonate EU foreign types of They programmes. focus on civil society mostly in the form as an implementing partner Both EIDHR and ENPI stress of a consultant. the need to consult with representatives of civil donors and actors, as as well as other society, process as possible in early in the programming order to facilitate their respective contributions and to ensure that assistance complementary activities are as as possible of the European (Official Union 2006). In addition, Journal civil the monitoring society should also be included in 2006g). In process (European Commission the case of Azerbaijan, the democratic promotion of human rights and EU identifies the reform as fields in partner for to be included as an implementing which civil society needs EU guidelines and allocated (European financialCommission 2007b: 5). An additional support example of the role civil society can à-vis play the vis- government lies in and the implementation development of (European Commission 2006d: 15). environmental policy agent as an agent of EU policy but also as an inside. It is generally of democratisation from seen as a stated that democracy has to be process, developing Journal from of the within European key are said to play a society organisations Union (Official 2006). Civil role in the promotion of democracy and human rights (European Commission 2010b). An indicator of initial regard is the increased number of consultations achievements in this of civil society (European Commission 2006g). But in the case in human rights of Azerbaijan, it legislation is recognised that civil society itself needs to grow further in order “to ensure a truly pluralistic and democratic development of 9). 2005d: Commission the country” (European We expect that the 15 The implementing agency for agency for The implementing 14 For the allocation of for civil funds society purposes under in the the Kazmierkiewicz 2010: 8-12. period diverse 2007-2009 see programmes Kaca/ EuropeAid was set up in 2001 to improve the implementation of far-reaching a i.e. devolution, to led establishment Its projects. EU form of administrative decentralisation, of responsibilities and recipient the in EU Delegations of the importance the increased the newly created countries (Raik 2006: 20). Since January 2011, Directorate-General Europe-Aid Development and Cooperation combines the former DG Development and DG Aid. Europe For see http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/who/about/ more information index_en.htm, accessed 1 February 2011. 14 15 to information or weak capacities (European capacities (European or weak to information do weaknesses 2006c), the detected Commission and countries individual between differentiate not their complex and diverse realities. these Moreover, weaknesses are the realisation of the EU goals impediments for not expressed as to be real achieved with the aid of to able is society civil whether seen be to remains civil society. It voiced by the EU. realise the ambitions as role societies’ look: civil a closer Taking instruments formulated in implementation The EU has several instruments at its disposal, which take These into consideration civil society. such as range from geographic programmes Partnership the European Neighbourhood and the programming (ENPI), including Instrument documents National such as the (NIP), to thematic programmes Indicative Programmes Authorities Actors and Local European Non-state Thematic Programme and Human European Instrument for Democracy (NSA-LA) Rights (EIDHR). and the all projects is EuropeAid. limited regional scope of a programme results results programme a of scope regional limited i.e. a better in a higher degree of differentiation, and a clearer consideration of local conditions performance picture on the abilities and real of civil society. For the which thematic are programmes not geared towards a specific but region implemented via worldwide calls, we assume instead that the EU approach’ uses resulting in a a more general ‘one definition size of the tasks The and analysis role of civil society. fits all of both categories reveals of that they programmes, are not however, substantially can be slight difference A in terms of content. different seen in the fact that the geographic programmes seem to structure the identified generaland 12 SPES Policy Papers 2011 h rl o vle, n aaye te EU’s important an ambitious the as society civil The considering of analysed idea society. and civil of values, understanding of role the rationale of the ENP with a special focus on a systematicachievement. therefore be seenasastarting point but notyetas can It tentative. be to appears engagement EU’s towards the use oftransnational channels in the reform processshouldbeundertaken, the shift the in society civil of inclusion and consultation how on rules clear of lack the Given 4). 2006e: for NGOregistration (European Commission procedures difficult by encumbered especially is however, of the fact that civil society in Azerbaijan societies cannot be found. There is recognition, of civil funded externally orconsideration of features particular the society civil of definition clear A(NGOs). organisations non-governmental with equated is society civil Moreover, 2004b). Commission European c, b, 2005a, Commission problematic equally (European Commission2006e,f,European considered and is organisations), 1500 corruption (with Azerbaijan in considered is much stronger(with2700organisations) than Moldova in society civil though even Moldova, of or case Armenia the in role this in mentioned not is it Azerbaijan, in corruption against fight the in actor society important an as civil seen is while example, interspersed For be haphazardly. to seems society civil Instead, fields. policy of number certain a for relevant as systematically mentioned as apriority countries reveals, however, that civil society is not with those forthe other Eastern Partnership ENP country report and action plan for Azerbaijan the of comparison The 4). 2010: Kaźmierkiewicz growing the importance the EU isattaching tothisissue(Kaca/ reflects 2006, since so more even society civil in programming documents since 2004, and to reference increasing an (Börzel/Pamuk/Stahn 2009), state-centred has rather Azerbaijan towards been assistance EU where Itriw y uhr wt cvl evns n h Mnsr of Ministry the in servants Foreign Affairs, Baku,June2010). civil with authors by (Interview society, civil on which issaidtobeakeyelement of afunctioningdemocracy emphasis special puts government the which to according Azerbaijan in discourse official the by mirrored is Compared to the first years of cooperation, years first the to Compared hs hpe hs xlrd h gas and goals the explored has chapter This per se,or the ENP framework. in assistance society civil of implementation the the ambitious discourse within the EU determines extent what to clarifies it time, same ENP.the At these factorsintoaccountwhenimplementing the takes EU the how explores chapter following The society. civil to assistance external gate-keeping as well as on the role of political elites in constraining and society civil of the capacities and on goals depend Answers negatively? perceived character of this inclusion (agent of EU policy the is or discourse official EU‘s the able and willing to play the roles assigned to it by society civil is Second, governments? of against will the even processes, political in it including systematically by society civil empowering i.e. questions. First, is the EU doing what it professes, totwo rise give conditions, country-specific the on based society civil of understanding concrete of theENP, coupledwiththelackofamore actor that cancontribute to ensuringthesuccess instrumental ) SPES Policy Papers 2011 13

18 A mixed approach, which combines A reminding The fear of falling behind neighbours or competitors can become can neighbours or competitors behind of falling fear The direct without even change policy towards factor push indirect an external pressure (Börzel/Risse 2009; 349). Dolowitz/Marsh 1996: Whereas the EU actors are aware of this tendency, of this tendency, aware are EU actors the Whereas they do not seem to use it to the EU’s advantage among the ENP by openly promoting competition partner countries. the government of facts and encouraging positive developments, is viewed Progress Report latest The best solution. the by EU officialsa is considered Commission 2010a) (European as was report the Although move. political successful generally positive, it contained enough criticism to ensure that it was received with some irritation by the government. At the same time, however, 18 sector receives prominent focus do not EaP and the ENP the that recognising mention. Although give officials EU the issues, energy on exclusively special importance to this topic. In their the view, on Russian its dependence EU needs to reduce gas and consequently encourages Azerbaijan to intensify cooperation in the energy sector. Since this requires good relations with the government, the ‘energy factor’ has, as will be shown below, ENP, the of implementation the for implications most is government the where areas those in notably respondents the Third, pass reforms. to reluctant consider the EU’s as rights and democracy of human policy area in the towards Azerbaijan and Armenia neighbours its to compared delayed between Rights Dialogue Human The Georgia. the EU and Azerbaijan that was agreed upon in 2008 was, for instance, only reluctantly accepted which was merely leadership, political by the Whereas issues. in discussing migration interested short and formulate the respondents do not clearly of development democratic the for goals long-term and thus do not mirror the ambitious the country, and over-optimistic interestingly official observe that the discourse, political the of development the to sensitive are Azerbaijan elites in they they As Georgia. and Armenia with relations EU’s put it, political leaders do not want Azerbaijan to EU to accept be a laggard and they are more likely if the EU has decisions in the area of human rights neighbouring countries. towards similarly acted We assume that We 17 The EU in Azerbaijan: civil so- Azerbaijan: civil in The EU Until 2008, the only EU presence in Azerbaijan was a technical office. Sincerapidly growing is 2009, staff the Brussels, in Headquarters Commission tasks have and been today the EU taken is represented by over a fully-fledgedis of the European Union. Information about the Delegation Delegation from the available at: en.htm, accessed 1 March 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/delegations/azerbaijan/index_ EU actors’ knowledge about political, economic and cultural conditions in Azerbaijan contributes to the development of a towards tailor-made civil approach society, as actively will they that expect we Thus, documents. advocated in official to the goals of general ENP support the adaptation political situation and the abilities of civil society. But to what extent do EU Azerbaijan actually refer officialsto (i.e. adopt, transform, working in dilute, challenge) policy goals as expressed in the assess ENP? How do they phase of the formulation the role of civil society of in the the ENP and implementation in Azerbaijan’s democratisation process? and between the EU The political relations actors Azerbaijan as seen by the political involved When asked about the EU’s goals in its relations with Azerbaijan, the EU officials highlight three conclusions to be drawn allow issues that interlinked and the perception about the EU‘s policy priorities of its room to manoeuvre. First, the respondents that the EU aims to broaden and deepen argue the relationship with Azerbaijan in the political existing frameworks, the government being partner. cooperation necessity its most important by Agreement, Association of an The negotiation an as officials EU the by seen is 2010, in launched and a task for the relationship milestone important of They consider the rule for the coming years. as the economy to a market law and the transition most important elements and achievable goals of this agreement. Second, cooperation in the energy 17 Looking beyond formal documents, this chapter this documents, formal beyond Looking analyses the views, attitudes, and EU strategies officials of working in European Union the Delegationto Azerbaijan. of the II tightrope walk as a ciety assistance EU for the 14 SPES Policy Papers 2011 19 political officially registered NGOs in 5,000-6,000 involved of Out not decision-making. are thus, and elites political the to connected well not are Azerbaijan playing from in society civil society of sections large First, role. a such civil hindered have reasons main that two however, are, there Baku, in Commission. process ofProgressReportsbytheEuropean ENP Action Plans,andconsultation in thedrafting of laws,themonitoring of theimplementation of different political processes, e.g.inthepreparation in, rights and to, access actors society civil giving mean would This discourse. official its in EU the by expressed objective one is documents strategic the in defined goals the meeting of aim the with process ENPreform the in society civil Involving Civil societyasaweakimplementingpartner that willbeanalysedinthefollowing. issue an environment, unfavourable an in act to has society civil that suggests reforms democratic The reluctance of political elites to undertake more resistancefromthepolitical leadership. human rights anddemocracy isseenasmeeting and the energy goals forthe future, progressinthe dialogue on in economic sectors are assessed asrealistic cooperation intensified to government the cooperate withtheEU. While reformsand by different willingness perceive of they degrees that show Azerbaijan appropriate orconstructive. EU officials do not consider further antagonism as which trust in NGOs and trade unions is very low.very is unions trade and NGOs in trust which to according 2008, and 2003 between is Azerbaijan assessment This objectives. strengthened by a its sociological survey conducted in or role, its society, civil of concept the understand large not does at society nonexistent. interviewees, almost the to is According public broader the and society civil between link the Second, decisions. governmental challenging in active be to said are vary between2,600and3,200(USAID 2010). NGOs registered of number precise the for figures government to due are NGOs and variation in definition 12) by sources. According page to USAID, NGO and (see society civil estimates concerning in Differences partners. interview by named Figures codn t ofcas f h EUDelegation the of officials to According towards the relations on views officials’ EU 19 nAebia ol aon 20 around only Azerbaijan in 2005). 2006, 2008, 2009, (Musabayov/Shulman power of trustinthePresident,whocanconsolidate his level high a displays population the contrast, In 20 ii scey s an as society civil as particularly meaningful, and thesupportof political in processes related toENP andEaP society wasassessed civil considered involving contrast, was In Azerbaijan government. the of reluctance the given in critically impact their policies were seenasimportant in principle, initiatives with missions that are not directly related to EU grass-roots Although from inside. an as foreign policy society civil implementing partner(andthusanagentofEU implicitly between respondents differentiated the discourse, the official in assigned roles in the actors Mirroring EU Azerbaijan. by optimistically society viewed civil not are and EU the between by cooperation offered opportunities the and Azerbaijan of the potential role of civil society in the both reform process sector, society civil the of weaknesses by externalactors(Gahramanova2009). lack ofemphasisplacedondemocracy promotion might encourage political mobilisation and the limited opportunity structuresinsidethecountrythat of both because difficult particularly is however, Azerbaijan, in society civil The of situation 2009). Stewart 2010; (Solonenko problem considered tocontributethepersistenceof exclusive the most The is sources external by society for civil of parts active assistance legacy. financial of Communist provision the by political leadership, it is argued, is to be explained broader societal backing and close ties to the without activists society civil of groupings loose of phenomenon The 2006). Raik 2008; Stewart 2010; (Solonenko countries post-Soviet other in detected been also has but Azerbaijan, to unique both thepolitical elite and thebroaderpublicisnot alive byitsownfoundersandmembers. kept artificially is that business a officials, EU to according resembles, Azerbaijan in sector NGO system (TheCaucasusResearchResource Center2011: 17-20). See also the opinion poll on public opinion in Azerbaijan on the political s rsl o ti ve o te existing the on view this of result a As and society civil between links missing These 20 Notindemandbythesocietyatlarge, the ) andanagentofdemocratisation implementing partner ofthe SPES Policy Papers 2011 15 Nevertheless, the EU has a concrete The results of the interviews suggest that harsh governmental reactions protests to by civil qualifying the society disrespect rights of human and personal freedoms in unsystematic. Azerbaijan as at its disposal to promote human mechanism the repeat documents Several Azerbaijan. in rights the and rights human to commitment general EU’s of the (Council defenders rights support of human European Union 2008b; Council of the European Union 2006; Official Journal Union of 2006). the European Being interface” (Council of actors and the “primary identified asthe European Union 2008b) important between the EU and human rights activists, the EU Delegations become can active in different ways, about the human rights situation, information from sharing defenders keeping in contact with human rights with rights human about dialogue a sustaining and the national government, to conducting actions to protect those activists who are under immediate Union European the of (Council pressure political 2008b). EU officials in Azerbaijan consider this mechanism principally disseminate they acknowledge the need to successful. However, throughout the region, further knowledge about it to order in public, broader to the especially and to spread knowledge strengthen its impact about individual rights, human rights activists and the efforts EU’s to protect them. Being conscious that non-visibility limits the impact of EU efforts, they do not seem to have a how strategic to improve vision visibility. on Neither do they have concrete ideas on how to build on civil society as active promoters of human rights and advocates the Interestingly, area. this in actions EU for respondents stress that the EU seeks to ensure a “minimum level of human rights” in Azerbaijan. Compared to official documents this assessment proves a much more modest Azerbaijan. achievable in view of what is act between the EU performs a balancing maintaining good relations with the government and advocating for human rights and democratic reforms in Azerbaijan. In this context, civil society parts active in this field are not considered of implementing EU officials see the potential of including civil society in the its political realisation process; is considered however difficult duestructural deficienciesto the of civil society. Although the concept of civil society as an partner is constructive used, A it remains unclear. abilities society’s civil improve to how on outlook in the future and make it a stronger reform partner is missing. of Civil society as an (unpleasant) promoter values and principles? European The Azerbaijani government has paper) (at committed least itself on to principles in its relations with the EU by signing certain values and Agreement Partnership and Cooperation the (PCA) and the Action Plan. Theoretically, civil as political commitments use these can society leverage in its quest for reforms and the respect of fundamental values (Solonenko 2010: 13). As seen in the previous the chapter, EU in its official a as act to society civil encourage does documents promoter of European values and principles. EU officials in Azerbaijan, however, argue one hand, they On the subscribe to this idea. only partially fundamental promote NGOs that by funding that values (mainly human rights oil and gas just than more about cares it shows that NGOs), the EU in Azerbaijan. On the other hand, they relativise EU was equated with an indirect empowerment. they that argued the respondents In this regard, seek to play a mediating role by giving NGOs a to claims their demands and say and transmitting the government. However, making this triangle between government, civil society and work the was EU considered a highly difficultthis regard, scholars task.and experts criticise the EU’s In tendency to include civil society unsystematically (Barbé/ elites will of national and not against the Johansson-Noguès 2008; The Alieva EaP Civil 2006: Society Forum systematic inclusion of goal civil society in 17). the reform of a more in the long this problem process could remedy the run. positive Interestingly, value of this forum interviewed. officials EU the by expressed not was platform in supporting the national Engagement remained vague and seemed constrained. to be financially 16 SPES Policy Papers 2011 mirrored onlypartlybythefinancialallocations. society an implementing intheENPpartner is civil to make documents) official in formulated (as aim EU’s the time, same the At outside. the from with influence to relations adverse being latter the its government, impact negatively may projects societal – the implementation of more to contrast in – that fear EU’s are neglected. This fundingreality underpins the NGOs of development capacity the in as well as the properarea of humanrightsanddemocracy reduction, education, youth), whereasprojectsin poverty children, disabled (e.g. issues social on that the bulkofmoneyisspentonprojectsfocusing 22 21 Azerbaijan in organisations society civil eagerness toimproveitsperformance. technical administrator with potential but limited and grant-giver a appear EU the make practices the distribution offundscoupledwithfunding below, shown as However, Azerbaijan. in society civil of potential the develop can EU the financial which processes, political assistance may be the most important means by in society civil Taking into account current difficulties in including through funding? Operational aspects:empoweringcivilsociety thus beginningtolosecredibility. are and positions extreme supporting for blamed as importantchangeagents.Instead,theyare y h E Dlgto. oee, ih ve to view a with However, Delegation. EU the by organisations society civil to offered been far so and acknowledge that no application training has respondents considerthissituation problematic The bureaucratic. and complex as describe actors with EU application procedures, which EU clashes often knowledge English of level low a Moreover, funds. EU for qualifying in difficulties in results organisations society civil in personnel) ofhuman resources (i.e.nocompetent andwell-trained lack ageneral First, officials. EU the funds, twomain problems are emphasised by Kazmierkiewicz 2010). has alsobeendetected asregardstheotherENP countries (Kaca/ Interestingly, an emphasis on projects focusing on social issues instruments wasprovidedbytheEUDelegation. A detailed listwithallprojectsfundedbythedifferent EU A look at the actual financial allocations for allocations financial actual the at look A Regarding thepotential recipients ofEU political 21 projects reveals 22 2) Mroe, hs prah s iiig the limiting is approach this Moreover, 227). 2008: (Stewart sectors” private and public the in broader societyaswelltopotential partners an institutional identity and projecting it to the measures tends to prevent NGOs from “developing offering core funding and capacity building EU’s practice of solely funding projects instead of the that argue scholars Some Azerbaijan. in society civil for assistance EU of focus the is in Brusselsmighthinderthischange. Headquarters Commission the by Azerbaijan for realities, the fact that such calls are notstipulated for smaller grants inorderto better match the Stewart 2008). Although the 2010; interviewees express the need (Börzel process accession the in 2010) and for Central and Eastern European countries (Solonenko Ukraine for made been have observations Similar tendency. this to exception no is capacities. Azerbaijan necessary the without NGOs smaller disadvantage further procedures application bureaucratic the sector; Azerbaijan) society civil in small very tends to create orreinforce fragmentations in the civil is of (which part society professionalised the privilege to excluded from EU funding. and EU from excluded neglected consequently are regions) the in based often and experienced less (small, NGOs well-connected financially NGOs regularly and that other EU and experienced large, of circle the small a supports that acknowledge They effectively.openly projects big-scale manage to capacity the have Azerbaijan in NGOs 20 to 10 only officials, EU the to According projects. big society civil of inexperience organisations results inaninability to handle the that fact the resources beingroundlycriticised. follow thispathforfearofwastingtheirown has process been promoted,reluctant withthoseNGOsto application the in society civil for doing’approach by ‘learning a contrast, either.In expected be cannot situation the in improvement the limited human resources inthe Delegation, an 23 of notbeingindependent(Abbasov2010). representatives NGO many by however,accused Parliament, is it This body was set up in 2008 and is managed by a member of the NGOs’. to Support offeredState funding of from ‘Council the by One respondent appreciated that smaller NGOs can instead benefit As in other ENP countries, project funding Second, the interviewees voice concerns about concerns voice interviewees the Second, 23 The EU’s approach EU’s The SPES Policy Papers 2011 17 Civil society in Azerbaijan: a Azerbaijan: in Civil society Based on interviews with leaders of civil III partner but critical reform willing In countries where opposition is weak, political players and the political elites are actors, notably a reform-minded other domestic veto- civil society, may become relevant actors in the reform process initiated by the ENP (Solonenko 2010: 13). According to the official discourse at least, the EU seeks to strengthen civil society and The partner. as an implementing work wants it to previous chapter has shown that EU actors only partially subscribe to this discourse and question the potential of civil society Azerbaijan in to take outside-in takes an This chapter on such a role. perspective by focusing on civil society’s views society civil more the that Assuming attitudes. and reflects and shares the EU’s political offers and policy goals and the better it relevant is (personnel equipped and financial) with resources, the more likely is its identification as a change agent, ENP. of the implementation support the which can Therefore, in a first step, the followinganalyses chapter how civil society assesses the political relations between the EU and Azerbaijan. second step In it takes a closer a look at how far civil the to contribute to willing and is able society it will assess Finally, of the ENP. implementation to what extent civil society feels empowered by the EU through its financial support. society organisations in Azerbaijan, this chapter shows that despite being discouraged by the priorities currently dominating relations, EU-Azerbaijan the civil society in Azerbaijan to and is willing goals of the ENP the general shares being Although partner. as an implementing act appreciative of the funds given by the EU, civil society does not perceive them as a form of moral support and wishes more non-monetary assistance. its Due role to as patchy inclusion of civil society, reform partner is still partial and inconsistent. between the EU and The political relations based on oil? Azerbaijan: a relation Generally, civil society the advantage in of integrating as means and the EaP Azerbaijan understands the ENP into the sees EU and This chapter has shown the limited relevance of the official discourse for EU officials working in Azerbaijan. Their weaknesses of and setting political the about differentiated knowledge civil society does not result in a copying of ambitious the normative agenda nor does an adaptation it of entail the latter to more tailor-made objectives. specificInstead, the importance of and and human rights of democracy reforms in the area is downgraded. Civil society is considered a ‘sick the has that change of agent an than rather patient’ of to contribute to the implementation potential At the same and the promotion of values. the ENP does not seem to act as the EU Delegation time, a retributive agent between (EU two in Brussels and distant target actors in Azerbaijan), levels and of general which could lead to a renegotiation Azerbaijan. country-specific goals for sustainability sustainability of civil society efforts and instead reinforces the ‘business-character’ of society sector. the civil 18 SPES Policy Papers 2011 altruistic actor coherently promoting democracy, better ensure itsownenergy securityandnotasan to country transit as and provider Azerbaijan reliable a preferring actor interest-driven the other hand,the EU ismainly considered an that thecountrywouldbebetteroff without.On to the democratisation process and a commodity impediment general a as viewed is oil hand, one decisive and exclusive factor in Azerbaijan’s the relations with the EU. as On the issue energy the perceive actors society EU’s civil the priorities, numerous of one merely as sector energy the in cooperation consider who officials EU to contrast most important partner and forbeing loyal to it. In its government the making for blamed is EU the Moreover, documents. official in out set are that values the supporting from EU the prevent states energy-related interests of theEUand its member the and government Azerbaijani the money to available oil the that argue They Azerbaijan. and as the main focus ofattention forboth the EU of them seecooperation in theenergy sector integration by meansoftheENP. and Instead,most Azerbaijan of democratisation the between democracy andhumanrights. of areas the in notably outside, from influence to adverse is it that and money need not does it that given Azerbaijan for valid are built are EaP the actors doubt that the assumptions onwhich the ENP society and civil some Finally, government. Azerbaijani the of priorities the to goals its adapt highly different countries, is not flexible enough to ENP,the that fact the 16 for developed was which of disapprove to said is government the addition, the EUforfearofbeingpressuredintoreforms.In from support financial accept to reluctant being as to gladly accept technical assistance, it is described by EUleaders to strengthen its ownlegitimacy and visits official use to said is leadership political the While cooperate. to reluctance government’s the national priority, othermorecritical actors stressed government’s rhetoric by affirming that the EU is a pro-governmental civil society actors mirrored the Whereas government. the to organisations society civil of proximity the with correlate to relationship seem that EU-Azerbaijan varying the highly however, of are, assessments There so. do to ii scey cos o o se drc link direct a see not do actors society Civil em esetvs te ou sol b o short- on be should focus the long- perspectives, term proposing than rather Here, government. of the with involvement cooperation intensified and greater society civil both for strive should EaP the view, their In EU. the with cooperation civil Azerbaijan, in leaders society actors also have suggestions for increasing political and EU comparable tothoseofitsneighbours. with the EU, it must contribute and make efforts and is aware of the fact that if it wants to integrate compares itself toothercountriesintheregion officials, civil society believes that the government interestingly in line with the perceptions of the EU it can be classified as an as classified be can it towards policy Azerbaijan. that widespread so is assumption This EU’s the in change paradigm a run will out soon,astheyassumethiswillcontribute to reserves oil and gas country‘s the that successful thantheirownleadsthemtohope region, andespecially that in Georgia, asmore the in processes democratisation other the Seeing Iran). to also but Caucasus South the of countries other countries inthe region (mostly the other standards in Azerbaijan. civil to according society actors, lead to the adoption of European will, that support technical appealing, aspect ofEUassistanceisseeninthe a rein. However, an interesting, and for Azerbaijan loose too far giving Azerbaijan is EU society,the civil of opinion the In Georgia. and with Armenia been established muchlater thanthedialogues has EU- which Dialogue, the Rights concerns Human Azerbaijan picking cherry of example go farbeyondtheformalrelationship. Another blame the EU for forging shadow agreements that actors society civil some regard, this In security. third multilateral platform dealing with energy the on focuses exclusively leadership political the it, ENPput actors society civil the several As programme. from cherries the Azerbaijani pick the to permit government to said is EU the time, human rightsandtheruleoflaw. At thesame 24 make thepoliticalsystemandgovernment morestable. assume thataslongthemoneyis managedcentrally, itwill they Rather, support. EU or revenues oil from comes money the sceptical in thisregard.Intheiropinionitissecondarywhether more are organisations donor foreign some of Representatives Beyond criticising the priorities of boththe ii scey cos opr Aebia to Azerbaijan compare actors society Civil oil myth. 24 Moreover, and SPES Policy Papers 2011 19 Civil society actors confirm the assessment of lamented that among the 30-80 active civil society civil active 30-80 the among that lamented is only majority the country, in the organisations concerned with reactive tasks such as monitoring rather advice, legal giving and media or legislation than proactively developing initiatives, preparing contributing to the implementation or legislation of reforms, inter alia the EU-Azerbaijan Action Plan. Second, a lack relations of are given publicity as and reasons link media for between civil the society missing and society Civil at society large. representatives unanimously regret by which is also mentioned this missing link, opinion that unlike in They are of the EU actors. Georgia or Ukraine, the Azerbaijani society has functions motives, the of knowledge minimal only and objectives of Concerning civil the role of society civil society organisations. to the that is argued it EU policy, implement and promote society in Azerbaijan also lacks information on the EU and consequently does not understand the integration EU the in society civil of role potential process. implementing weak a are they that officials EU the partner. They go one step further and reflect on how to improve their performance, with financial way to do so. support not being seen as the only The EaP Civil Society Forum, for instance, was potentially assessed by all respondents as being conducive to strengthening civil society’s role in the implementation of the ENP. It perceived is as moreover an indicator that the promotion local civil of society is of increasing importance for serious a becoming is society civil that and EU, the partner, even in Azerbaijan. civil society actors criticised the However, selection process several for the forum’s first meeting as non-transparent. The EU Delegation in Azerbaijan was of favouring accused those CSOs that already receive EU funding and of selecting pro-governmental CSO’s much. too government the antagonising of fear for Concrete recommendations to society’s role improve as implementing civil partner measures a greater focus on capacity-building include English training and (inter alia grant application courses) and advocacy work. In EU to issue public on the call actors society addition, civil statements on governmental measures that narrow Therefore, they rather they Therefore, 25 Overall, civil society’s view on the relations In principle, both representatives of the This remark is especially interesting in a time where political interesting This remark is especially developments in approach EU’s the put 2011) early (since countries Mediterranean Belarus (in to the test. December 2010) and the suggest that the EU should demand compliance suggest that the EU with concrete obligations incurred by Azerbaijan Action Plan. in the between the EU and Azerbaijan is society civil hand, one the very On actors. both towards critical representatives do not detect on the part of their to cooperate of willingness different degrees government, but are unanimous in identifying an exclusive reliance on financial independence and On the other hand, they consider assets. energy pursuing the actor policy EU a weak foreign the wrong priorities. demanding weak implementing partner A measures strengthening concrete wrong the pursuing EU for the blaming Despite nonetheless is Azerbaijan in society civil priorities, of the to the implementation willing to contribute as this section shows, views differ However, ENP. tasks the fulfil to able is society civil whether to as improve could it how and EU the by it to assigned its performance. international donor community and civil society actors agree policies can only become more transparent and that the operational, and thus have an impact EU’s on domestic neighbourhood policy change, if civil At the same time, there their implementation. society is included weaknesses of the consensus that be to seems in the civil society sector in Azerbaijan have so far prevented civil society from playing the role of is it First, EU. the of partner implementing an 25 term measures and concrete offers that would that would offers and concrete term measures help Azerbaijan to establish strong market economy. and a functioning institutions, rule of law, Reflecting upon possible future may reluctance result Azerbaijan’s to from follow scenarios that the path proposed by the EU, some civil society representatives are afraid that and cutting elites with political of cooperation the termination financial assistance would lead toof the country the isolation and an even greater weakening of civil society initiatives. 20 SPES Policy Papers 2011 26 produced bytheENP (Rommens2008). democracy can beseen as “second order effects” uses the ENP that towards society the civil final goal of of strengthening empowerment This change. points thatenableittopushfordemocratic policy considers formalagreements ashelpful reference as of EUnorms,aprocesswhichisoftendescribed internalisation the to lead could that step first a as 17) 2005: (Schimmelfennig/Sedelmeier talk” EU or later, i.e. they seetherhetorical “talking the sooner actions and rhetoric its adjust to have will government the that assume actors society civil an increasedeagernesstoimplement them. Instead, formal in however, agreements, even if the government does strength, not show some see actors that little has changed in recent years. Civil society something good, while at the same time criticising as presence EU’s the considers vaguely society at its disposal to promote democracy. Instead, civil democratisation or theinstruments that the EUhas a have to clear understanding of the causes and effects of seem not does society civil Overall, than EUvalues Civil societyaspromoter ofEuropean rather external stimuli. to relation in only not and inside ofdemocratisation from as agents themselves define i.e. legal advice on fundamental freedoms, giving suggest that government, they and the government the of of monitoring critical very are that NGOs rights human some of activities the time, under thecurrent political leadership. At thesame and could bring solutions to the problems faced attractive are agenda) EU-Azerbaijan the on high promoted by principles the EU (not and the specific issues goals that are general the that conviction own purposes.Rather, theyseemtoact out ofa an agenda and instrumentalising them for its imposing as EU the perceive not do actors society civil of majority large a situation, their to improve general in assistance external and EU the on the spaceforNGOs. difficult. more even policy the of results the evaluating make and rhetoric a fog of war-like discursive adoption, which would remain purely There is a certain danger that ‘talking the EU talk’ can also lead to Despite the fact that civil society relies heavily relies society civil that fact the Despite Mroe, ii society civil Moreover, discursive adoption. 26

e mr del ivle wt cvl oit. For society. civil with involved deeply more get they perceive the EU as a grant giver that does not hand, one the On important. equally considered internships in EUinstitutions andthink tanks are education, joint programmes, fellowships, and to supporttheirwork.Instead,technical assistance, EU the for way important, most the even only,or from foreign donors, they do notsee funding asthe assistance financial without survive to able would be not they that state actors society civil While society Funding notthemaster key toempower civil an effective andvisibleagent ofdemocratisation. other, ifwithalowerpresence, and notalwaysas the EUasaninternational organisation likeany sees society civil that show examples These EU. the naming without emphasised are government U.S. the and OSCE the Europe, of Council the by last elections not meeting international standards in this context. Moreover, the open criticism of the introduction of theENP andEaP arenotmentioned Azerbaijan to related joining theCouncilofEuropein2001,while hope their recall actors society civil Interestingly, actors. society civil to the EU, on political developments remains unclear notably promoters, democracy external of impact the years, five past the in improved considerably Europe concerning human rights and democracy has not in important factor. However, given that Co-operation the situation an as seen is Europe, and of Council the and (OSCE) Security for Organization the EU, the including organisations, external actors–mightbe,however, ismissing. incorporated by the EU –incomparison to other or promoted values specific the what of definition organisations from theEU. A reference to or developing mutual collaboration with civil society and society educating by values democracy.of promoters as European and Others also subscribe to the idea that they act with values society useful Azerbaijani European are the society familiarising civil in of argue activities actors the society that civil some government, society, whichcontinues to beascribed to the influence to authority moral necessary the have to In a similar vein, the presence of international of presence the vein, similar a In perceived not is EU the that fact the Despite SPES Policy Papers 2011 21 Scarce 27 Civil society has quite an On ambiguous view. Extremely weak linkages among civil society organisations and a low level of inclusion according in to international the networks represent, CIVICUS Azerbaijan, a Civil major challenge Society of the Index Azerbaijani (Sattarov/Faradov/Mamed-zade 2007). civil Report society for 27 that can put pressure on the government. exceptions exceptions only occur For in instance, cases the government of attempt and Parliament to impose of restrictive urgency. the amendments Azerbaijani to the NGO law in 2009 triggered concerted protest by civil society and led to the creation of a ‘Committee to protect civil society’ joint pressure by Finally, law. to oppose the draft led community international the and activists NGO the Parliament to reject some of the controversial proposals and dilute the USAID 2010). law (Abbasov 2010; the one hand, it is very critical of EU-Azerbaijan relations, which it perceives to be solely based on is seen as the main relationship This oil-based oil. in the for reforms and democratisation obstacle the EU On the other hand, it doubts that country. could take on the role of an influential promoter of democracy even without this does obstacle. it goals, policy While EU’s the with agreeing largely not feel adequately equipped, which impedes its identification with the role of an agent somewhat of change on behalf of the EU. Moreover, society civil critically perceives that in While reducing it to grant takers. EU is largely practice the on foreign acknowledging their dependence financial sources, civil training) application grant (e.g. measures different society actors believe absorption society’s civil improve to necessary are Although and foster its empowerment. capacity civil society is mainly willing to cooperate with the EU, stronger (and not only monetary) support will be needed to turn civil society into a reform partner in the implementation of the ENP. A lack A of solidarity among civil society actors In its role as a the grant EU giver, is compared to other international organisations and the and organisations to other international representations of individual countries, such the Norwegian Embassy, the Council of Europe, as which were all named as and the British Embassy, very active grant givers in Azerbaijan. Therefore, seen as an in funding matters the EU is also further is This other. any like actor international (especially EU the that fact the by enhanced the European Commission in Brussels, but also the Delegation in Baku) is perceived as a rather distant actor by civil society providing sufficient support and directly or indirectly not seen as via public statements in favour of reform-minded local actors. is another element in assessment civil of society’s the funding situation. Some civil society actors accuse others of owing their existence to foreign grants only. These ‘grant-eaters’ in what they for not being sincerely engaged are criticised for are doing, for not working professionally, and for merely grant money, misappropriating which is This phenomenon, others. imitating said to have its roots funded externally of problem general a considered in the Soviet legacy, is civil societies. It mirrors the argument made by EU actors that civil society is merely a business for domestic actors to survive A financially. low level of solidarity within the civil society sector of fragmentation. degree with a high is coupled Some actors see the civil society sector as divided into different categories (e.g. pro-governmental, oppositional, independent; passive real versus active) versus and distance is not This situation accordingly. from others fake; themselves conducive to cooperation and coalition building within the civil society sector, and thus impedes civil society from becoming a collective actor instance, instance, civil society actors would like the EU to issue public statements in support of civil society. Seeing that the EU acts merely as question a into call to actors society grant civil some leads giver the European Commission’s interest in (political) cooperation with civil On society. the other hand, they assess the performance of the civil society sector critically and blame funds effectively. for not using organisations other civil society 22 SPES Policy Papers 2011 eoe h E’ ipeetn prnr without partner implementing EU’s the become to society civil of ability the sector, society civil EaP. Given the weakness and fragmentation of the in political processes,e.g.intheframework ofthe for a more systematic involvement of civil society development of civil society are coupled with calls towards an approach focusing on capacity- Demands forareorientation ofEU assistance light. ambivalent more a in however,seen is, idea – largely welcomed. The implementation of this – basedonageneralagreement with ENP goals but in Azerbaijan actors society civil by criticised (agent of EUforeign policy society civil influential and society.civil Generally, the actor political promoter of democracy that helpsto empower a than rather function administrative-technical an with donor a as mainly EU the perceive Azerbaijan in actors close relationswiththe Azerbaijani government. energy priorities and itsdesiretokeepgood EU’s the to related be to seems partner reform a become, to or be, to society civil of potential the neglects mainly EU the that fact The objectives. secondary or visions unrealisable to downgraded concepts as expressed in the formulation phase are and tailor-made policies. Instead, policy goals and functional to goals general of adaption innovative an in result not does society civil of weakness the and context political the about actors’knowledge ENP.EU the of implementation the for relevance that the ambitious discourse hasonlylimited suggested has in Azerbaijan working officials EU thematic implementationinstruments. or bygeographic differentiated or specified Eastern not EU’s the however, in is, idea ENPambitious This neighbourhood. the by set achievement goals the of to contribute can that partner reform a as society civil constructs discursively goals. policy EU official towards promote and interpret, receive, policy EU’s how differently EU officials and local civil society the of shown has society civil of role the and Azerbaijan analysis The Conclusions andrecommendations hr, t a be son ht ii society civil that shown been has it Third, of attitudes and views of analysis the Second, First, ithasbeendemonstrated that theEU instrumentalisation ) wasnot of Union to Azerbaijan 2011). in this direction (Delegation of the European step positive a is actors civil international and the society with cooperation and dialogue ensure to government the on calling and Azerbaijan in rights human and EU’sdemocracy the for support underlining activists, youth of arrests recent about 2011March in concern Delegationexpressing EU the by issued statement A government. the with civil include society-related issues inthepolitical dialogue systematically to more do should NGOs EU the 2011, rights of spring in human activists political and on pressure violent and increasing capacity-development of context the in Moreover, on measures. strongly and more society civil focus local of capacities the match small-scale grant programmes which wouldbetter up set should It its society. civil rethinking towards start approach should EU the Azerbaijan, and performanceinitsrelationstowards priorities EU’s society’s the civil towards criticism Given increasing potential. its on build to area the in partner of democracy and human rights andthusfails reform its as society civil political situation. to act without waiting for achange in thecurrent EU the on call and Azerbaijan in actors and societal governmental of perceptions and priorities following recommendations are based on the for theEU’s policy towards Azerbaijan? The limited. increased and adaptedsupportfromtheEUseems 28 countries andthusincreasing the pressure for leverage exercise to by fosteringcompetition among the ENP partner seek and advantage its to and democracy human rights. The EU shouldusethistendency of areas the in even treatment, its neighbours and competitors and demands equal the its performance regarding EUintegration with thatof compares actors, Azerbaijan in society leadership political civil and representatives do?reference=MEMO/11/256, lastaccessed19 April 2011. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. 2011, April 18 Füle, for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Commissioner the of spokesperson the by Statement the also See h E de nt osdr h Azerbaijani the consider not does EU The What implications do these conclusions have codn t te bevtos f EU of observations the to According 28 SPES Policy Papers 2011 23 the state. Third, Azerbaijan’s only true independence in financial terms. The is openness of the Azerbaijani government to from the EU in order to improve the effectiveness technical support of its administration proves that to would like it know-how which of technical it is in need receive from cooperation with the EU. the EU should take a stronger this background, Against stance on democratic capacity- transfer and strengthen knowledge developments, increase at the administrative level. building measures Azerbaijan’s Azerbaijan’s independence due to its large In early 2011, the EU rewarded the signing In early 2011, of a joint declaration on gas a on negotiations opening of announcement delivery with the visa facilitation this long term In the 2011). (EURACTIV agreement with political Azerbaijan move will favour Azerbaijani current the up open could mobility whose greater citizens political system. From this point of view, the EU should be cautious and not give up its negotiation power too early but couple it with demands vis- à-vis the government. At the visa facilitation same and time, the perspective both of visa free travel are no real incentives for the Azerbaijani government. Against this background, should the adapt EU its offers better leverage. partner countries in order to increase to the respective energy reserves is generally seen with reform and compliance democratisation as obviating proposed cautiously) (too are suggestions, which by the EU. Several factors, however, the relativise country’s independence and possible give leverage the to EU on promote values. First, stability Azerbaijan is are states as EU member based resources its selling as interested in in buying them. cannot and pipelines is long-term in energy Moreover, given that on energy be changed at whim, dependence trade ‘partners’ increases once they have been chosen. Second, stability and transparent more including of law, rule the i.e. jurisdictional reliability, in the only not are structures, democratic and EU’s interest but also in the interest of Western oil industries that would like country and to see invest their in investments the protected by reforms. This could be done by a more systematic be done by a more This could reforms. in the of regional differences formulation and open field of democracy andhuman rights towards the additional including by or governments respective elements – beyond the upon progress conditional which make assistance Governance Facility – This would reform agenda. made on the agreed reward ‘leaders’ and handed, leave as ‘laggards’ the empty- new High the and Commission European of the ‘more for more’ strategy Representative of the European Union suggests (European Commission/High Representative of 2011). the European Union 24 SPES Policy Papers 2011 Börzel, Tanja A. (2010): “Introduction: Why you don’t always get what you want: EU enlargement and Resisting.” Still but Fire Under Azerbaijan: in Society “Civil (2010): Shain Abbasov, Bibliography Council of theEuropean Union (2006):“Council Conclusions onEUguidelines on humanrights Council of the European Union. General Affairs and External Relations Council (2007): “Strengthening Council of the European Union (2008b): “Ensuring protection – European Union Guidelines on Human “Council Conclusions onEuropean Neighbourhood Policy.(2008a): ” Union European the of Council Böttger, Katrin (2010): EntstehungundEntwicklung der Europäischen Nachbarschaftspolitik. Akteure US and EU Stability? or “Democracy (2009): Stahn Pamuk/Andreas A./Yasemin Tanja Börzel, an as Union European The Mars? Approaching “Venus (2009): Risse A./Thomas Tanja Börzel, Countries.” Partner the in perception and Visibility ENP. “The (2008): Annegret Bendiek, European the of context the in Europe Eastern in promotion “Democracy (2007): Timm Beichelt, Barbé, Esther/Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués (2008): “The EU as a modest ‘force for good’: the European Matters.” Democracy “Azerbaijan: (2010): Gorkhmaz Askarov, Caucasus.” South and “EU (2006): Leila Alieva, Papers FG22008/01.Berlin:Stiftung Wissenschaft undPolitik. Analytical Digest civil societyinCentralandEasternEurope.” Palgrave Macmillan:150-184. Washington: The GermanMarshallFundoftheUnitedStates. cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/90013.pdf, accessed20January201 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ 11-12. Luxembourg: 161). (Presse 9946/06 defenders.” world/enp/pdf/enp_progress-report_presidency-june2007_en.pdf, accessed7September2010. The European Neighbourhood Policy. Presidency Progress Report. ” Brussels.http://ec.europa.eu/ en08.pdf, accessed20January2011. Rights Defenders.” Brussels. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/16332-re01. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/ 8-10. pressdata/en/gena/98818.pdf, accessed7September2010. Brussels: 41). (Presse 6496/08 und Koalitionen McFaul Risse/Michael Magen/Thomas Amichai (eds.). in: Caucasus.” Southern the in Engagement Freie UniversitätBerlin. Power.” World Civilian Emerging Conference. International Biennial TenthEUSA Montreal: Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)” Conference paper. Neighbourhood Policy. ”International Affairs 84(1):81-96. school-2008/reading_lists/download/alieva_eu_south_caucasus.pdf, accessed1September2010. Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung an der LMU München. http://ecologic-events.eu/hertie- Promoting DemocracyandtheRuleofLaw. American andEuropean Strategies . EuropäischeSchriftenvl.87.Baden-Baden:Nomos. 12:13-15. Berlin Working PapersonEuropean Integration Acta Politica CAP DiscussionPaperDecember 2006. München: 45(1-2):1-10. On Wider Europe 1.2010/06. 1. . New York:. 11. Berlin: Caucasus Working

SPES Policy Papers 2011 25 ” COM(2011) 303. ” COM(2011) Demokratieförderung. Politik gestalten oder beraten? Münster/New Politik Demokratieförderung. 44 (2): 343-357. ” Baku. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/azerbaijan/documents/press_ Political Studies Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Taking stock Taking Council. and the Parliament European Commission to the the from Communication Neighbourhood (ENP). Implementation of the European Policy Neighbourhood of the European Azerbaijan.” Report SEC(2010) 519. Brussels. Progress http://ec.europa.eu/world/ 200: in Policy accessed 8 September 2010. enp/pdf/progress2010/sec10_519_en.pdf, Caucasus, Asian Central Republics. Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and Southern Caucasus (2010b): Indicative Azerbaijan. National and Partnership Instrument. Neighbourhood “European ” Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/2011_enpi_nip_ 2011-2013. Programme azerbaijan_en.pdf, accessed 8 September 2010. on Financing in the Frame of the Eastern Partnership.” Brussels. http:// “Vademecum (2009): Policy accessed 1 September 2010. www.eeas.europa.eu/eastern/docs/eap_vademecum_14122009_en.pdf, Partnership.” Eastern Council. the COM(2008) 823 final. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/external_ relations/eastern/docs/com08_823_en.pdf, accessed 7 September 2010. ” Policy. Neighbourhood COM(2007) 774 final.com07_774_en.pdf, accessed 7 September 2010. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/ Azerbaijan.” EUROPEAID/126684/C/ACT/AZ. Brussels. country-based support scheme 2007 in COM(2006) 726 ” Policy. Neighbourhood European the on Strengthening Parliament European Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com_11_303_en.pdf, accessed 27 May 2011. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com_11_303_en.pdf, euractiv.com/en/energy/barroso-tops-azeri-gas-deal-visa-facilitation-news-501255, euractiv.com/en/energy/barroso-tops-azeri-gas-deal-visa-facilitation-news-501255, accessed 23 January 2011. and the Committee and Social Economic European the Council, the Parliament, European the changing Neighbouthood. to a new response A Regions. of the Committee York/München/Berlin: Waxmann. York/München/Berlin: of Youth Activists. of Youth releases/2011_03_10_local_eu_statement_on_recent_arrests_of_youth_activists_en.pdf, accessed 31 March 2011. Literature.” 10369/03 10369/03 (Presse 166). Luxembourg: V-VII. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/ 1 September 2010. accessed docs/pressdata/en/gena/76201.pdf, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Document “Commission Staff Working European Commission (2010a): European Commission. External Relations Directorate General. Directorate Eastern Europe, Southern European Commission. External Relations Directorate General. Directorate European Neighbourhood Parliament and the Commission to the European “Communication from (2008): Commission European European strong A Commission. the from “Communication (2007a): Commission European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR): European Commission (2007b): “European the Commission to the Council and the European Commission (2006a): “Communication from Essousso, Atchou Sodjada (2008): Sodjada Atchou Essousso, Azeri gas deal EURACTIV “Barroso with (2011): tops visa facilitation.” 14 http://www. January 2011. European Commission/High Representative of the European Union (2011): Communication to “Joint Delegation of the European Union to Azerbaijan (2011): Arrests on Recent “Local EU Statement Dolowitz, David Marsh P./David (1996): “Who Learns from Whom: a Review of the Policy Transfer ” Neighbourhood. – New Europe on Wider (2003): “Council Conclusions the European Union Council of 26 SPES Policy Papers 2011 European Commission (2006e): “EU/Azerbaijan Actionplan. European Commission (2006d):“European Neighbourhood andPartnershipInstrument. Azerbaijan, European Commission (2006c): “Non –Paper. Expandingonthe Proposals contained in the European Commission(2006b):“Non–Paper. ExpandingontheProposals contained in the European Commission (2006f):“EU/Armenia Actionplan.” Brussels.http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/ European Commission (2004b):“Staff Working Paper. European Neighbourhood Policy. European Commission (2004a):“Communicationfrom theCommission.European Neighbourhood “European Neighbourhood andPartnershipInstrument. Azerbaijan. (2005d): Commission European “EU/Moldova Actionplan.” Brussels.http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/ (2005c): Commission European European Commission (2005b): “Commission StaffWorking Paper. Annex to: „European Neighbourhood “CommissionStaffWorking Paper. (2005a): Annex to: „European Neighbourhood Commission European European Commission (2006g):“European Neighbourhood andPartnershipInstruments.Eastern European Commission(2003):“Communicationfromto theCouncilandEuropeanthe Commission pdf/action_plans/azerbaijan_enp_ap_final_en.pdf, accessed19May201 csp_azerbaijan_en.pdf, accessed8September2010. Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013.” Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_ world/enp/pdf/non-paper_thematic-dimension_en.pdf, accessed7September2010. (2006) 726Finalof4December2006.ENP –Thematic Dimension.” Brussels.http://ec.europa.eu/ Communication to theEuropean Parliament and the Council on ‘Strengthening the ENP’ –Com 7 September2010. accessed http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/non-paper_civil-society-dimension_en.pdf, Brussels. (2006) 726Finalof4December2006.Strengthening the Civil Society Dimension oftheENP.” Communication to theEuropean Parliament and the Council on ‘Strengthening the ENP’ –Com final. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com06_726_en.pdf, accessed 7 September 2010. pdf/action_plans/armenia_enp_ap_final_en.pdf, accessed19May201 world/enp/pdf/country/moldova_enp_country_report_2004_en.pdf, accessed19May201 http://ec.europa.eu/ Brussels. 267. SEC(2004)) final.” 373 (COM(2004) Moldova Report Country http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/ Brussels. strategy/strategy_paper_en.pdf, accessed1September 2010. final. 373 COM(2004) Policy. Strategy Paper.” csp_azerbaijan_en.pdf, accessed19May2011. Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013.” Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_ pdf/action_plans/moldova_enp_ap_final_en.pdf, accessed19May201 eu/world/enp/pdf/country/armenia_country_report_2005_en.pdf, accessed19May2011. Policy“ Country Report Armenia (COM(2005) 72 final.” SEC(2005) 285/3. Brussels. http://ec.europa. eu/world/enp/pdf/country/azerbaijan_country_report_2005_en.pdf, accessed19May2011. Policy“ Country Report Azerbaijan (COM(2005) 72 final.” SEC(2005) 286/3. Brussels. http://ec.europa. country/enpi_eastern_rsp_en.pdf, accessed19May2011. Regional Programme. Strategy Paper 2007-2013.” Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/ ” COM(2003) 104 final. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/ Brussels. final. 104 COM(2003) and SouthernNeighbours. ” Parliament. Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern ” Brussels.http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/ 1. 1. 1. 1. SPES Policy Papers 2011 27 DGAP- . London/ 44 (1): 29-55. Working Paper 70. Madrid: FRIDE. Working Journal of European Public Policy Public Journal of European International actors, democratization and the rule of KFG Working Paper Series KFG Working No. 3, August 2009. Berlin: Dezember 2010. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. A new Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Cultural Iidentity new Euro-Mediterranean A . Warsaw: The Institute of Public Affairs. of Public Institute The Warsaw: Papers. Reports - Policy Research The Columbia Journal of European Law 12 (2): 383-427. The Columbia Journal of European 2/10. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik e.V. 2/10. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für European Neighbourhood Policy.” Journal of Common Market Studies European Neighbourhood Policy.” compliance?” law. Anchoring Democracy? London: Routledge. law. Partnership Countries.” Partnership Portland: Cass: 84-107. Analyse in: Stefania Panebianco (ed.). Panebianco Stefania in: ” http://ec.europa.eu/world/ 2007.” June 18/19 Report. Progress Presidency Policy Neighbourhood accessed 7 September 2010. enp/pdf/enp_progress-report_presidency-june2007_en.pdf, Democratization 16 (4): 777–803. Ukraine.” of Case The ENP: Through Perspektive. FES Südkaukasus 16 (6): 916-934. Power of Europe“, Free University Berlin. Transformative (KFG) „The Kolleg-Forschergruppe com03_104_en.pdf, accessed 1 September 2010. 1 September 2010. accessed com03_104_en.pdf, our for Relations with New Framework Neighbours Eastern and Southern A Neighbourhood: http://www. Brussels. 329.290/1-177. PE (INI)).” – 2003/2018 – C5 – 0110/2003 (COM(2003) 104 27 May 2011. accessed ieac.org.ua/pics/content/15/1068458394_ans.pdf, A5- ” (COM(2003) 104 – 2003/2018(INI)). our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’ with Relations 0378/2003 FINAL. Brussels. accessed 27 May 2011. NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2003-0378+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP// http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/538&t 2009. November 17 ype=HTML, accessed 16 May 2011. promotion of democratic governance in the neighbourhood.” Magen, Amichai/Leonardo Morlino (eds.) (2009): (eds.) Morlino Amichai/Leonardo Magen, Kelley, Judith (2006): “New wine in old wineskins: Promoting political reforms through the new Judith (2006): “New wine in old wineskins: Promoting political Kelley, achieve Policy Neighbourhood European the Can enlargement: of shadow “The (2006): Amichai Magen, Transition?” in Regimes or Regimes “Hybrid (2008): Leonardo Morlino, Meister, Meister, Stefan (2010): “Recalibrating Germany’s and EU’s Policy in the South Caucasus.” Kaca, Elzbieta/Piotr Kazmierkiewicz (2010): “Eastern Promises: Supporting Civil Society in the Eastern the in Society Civil Supporting Promises: “Eastern (2010): Kazmierkiewicz Elzbieta/Piotr Kaca, Jünemann, Annette (2003): “The Forum Civil Euromed: Critical Watchdog and Intercultural Mediator.” Mediator.” Intercultural and Watchdog Critical Euromed: Civil Forum “The (2003): Annette Jünemann, General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) (2007): The European “Strengthening Gahramanova, Aytan (2009): “Internal and external factors in the democratization of Azerbaijan.” Gawrich, Andrea/Inna Melnykovska/Rainer Schweickert (2009): “Neighbourhood Europeanization Demokratisierung.“ für Anzeichen Keine – Wahlen den nach “Aserbaidschan (2010): Matthias Jobelius, Amendments 1-177. Draft report Pasqualina Napoletano. Wider Europe- Europe- Napoletano. Wider Pasqualina 1-177. Draft report (2003a): “Amendments Parliament European New Framework for A – Neighbourhood: Europe (2003b): “Report on ‘Wider European Parliament Benita (2009): Ferrero-Waldner, “Civil Society Forum strengthens the Eastern Partnership.” Brussels. Freyburg, Tina/Sandra Lavenex/Frank Schimmelfennig/Tatiana Skripka/Anne Wetzel (2009): “EU 28 SPES Policy Papers 2011 The Caucasus Research Resource Center (2011): “Public Opinion in Azerbaijan on the Political System.” William in: States.” Baltic the in society civil for support Union “European (2008): Susan Stewart, Juliane in: Revolution.” Orange the since Ukraine in Development “NGO (2009): Susan Stewart, the neighbourhood: Eastern the towards power’ ‘transformative EU’s “The (2010): Iryna Solonenko, Europeanization the Conceptualizing “Introduction: (2005): Sedelmeier Frank/Ulrich Schimmelfennig, Challenges Azerbaijan: in Society “Civil (2007): Mamed-zade Faradov/Ilham Rajab/Tair Sattarov, of involvement Caucasus: South the in Policy Neighbourhood European Rommens, “The (2008): Thijs Policy EU’s the up Step to How Society: Civil through Democracy “Promoting (2006): Kristi Raik, Official Journal of the European Union (2006): “Regulation(EC)No1889/2006oftheEuropean Parliament uaao, ai/ahi Sumn es) (2005): (eds.) Shulman Rasim/Rakhmil Musabayov, Musabayov, Rasim/Rakhmil Shulman (eds.) (2006): (eds.) Shulman Rasim/Rakhmil Musabayov, Musabayov, Rasim/Rakhmil Shulman (eds.) (2008): (eds.) Shulman Rasim/Rakhmil Musabayov, (2009): (eds.) Shulman Rasim/Rakhmil Musabayov, 2004. Baku:FriedrichEbertStiftung. Comparative analysis of findings of sociological survey held in the Republic by totals of 2003 and Caucasus Analytical Digest 24:17-20. Caucasus Analytical International Linkages (eds.): Deth van Maloney/Jan Frankfurt a.M.:PeterLang Verlag: 177-194. Besters-Dilger (ed.).UkraineonitsWay toEurope. InterimResultsoftheOrangeRevolution. Solonenko.pdf, accessed7September2010. transformative_power__towards_the_Eastern_neighbourhood-_the_case_of_Ukraine_Iryna_ http://www.iep-berlin.de/fileadmin/website/09_Publikationen/SPES_Policy_Papers/The_EU_s__ case of Ukraine.” (eds.). Sedelmeier Schimmelfennig/Ulrich Frank in: Europe.” Europeanization ofCentralandEastern Europe. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress2005:1-28. Eastern and Central of International CentreforSocialResearch(ICSR). and Opportunities in Transition.” 2008. http://www.uaces.org/pdf/papers/0801/2008_Rommens.pdf, accessed16May2011. process.” democratization the in NGOs Policy Studies. towards theEasternNeighbourhood.”CEPSWorking Document237.Brussels:CentreforEuropean human-rights/documents/reg_1889_2006_jo_l386_en.pdf, accessed8September2010. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/ Brussels. L386/1. of democracyandhumanrightsworldwide.” promotion the for instrument financing a establishing on 2006 December 20 of Council the of and Comparative analysis of findings of sociological survey held in the Republic by totals of 2003, of 2004 and2005.Baku:FriedrichEbertStiftung. totals by Republic the in held survey sociological of findings of analysis Comparative Comparative analysis of findings of sociological survey held in the Republic by totals of 2005, of 2006 and2007.Baku:FriedrichEbertStiftung. totals by Republic the in held survey sociological of findings of analysis Comparative Comparative analysis of findings of sociological survey held in the Republic by totals of 2006, of 2007 and2008.Baku:FriedrichEbertStiftung. totals by Republic the in held survey sociological of findings of analysis Comparative SPES Policy Papers August 2010.Berlin: Institut für Europäische Politik. . Cheltenham:EdwardElgar:218-237. Civil SocietyandGovernanceinEurope. FromNational to CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for Azerbaijan. Baku: Paper presented attheUACESconference, Edinburg, UK Azerbaijan in2005:Sociological monitoring. Azerbaijan in2007:Sociological monitoring. Sociological Monitoring: Azerbaijan in2004. Azerbaijan in2008:Sociological monitoring. The

SPES Policy Papers 2011 29 Baden-Baden: Nomos. Europe? or Strategic Power European Studies. Centre for Russian and East University of Birmingham. ” - June 2010. Edition Washington http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ April 2011. accessed 01 ngoindex/2009/azerbaijan.pdf, Rule of Law Promotion in the European Neighbourhood Policy. Normative Policy. Neighbourhood in the European Nicole (2010): Rule of Law Promotion Wichmann, Katarzyna Wolczuk, (2003): Report on The Wider Europe/New Neighbours Initiative (WE/NNI). The USAID (2010): 13th and Eurasia: and Eastern Europe Index for Central “2009 NGO Sustainability