Euronest Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire Euronest Parlamentarische Versammlung Euronest Парламентская Aссамблея Евронест
COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY
Minutes of the meeting of Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Brussels
The meeting was opened on 4 November 2014, at 9.15 am, with the Vice-Co-Chair Ms Naira ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) in the chair.
Vice-Co-Chair Ms ZOHRABYAN welcomed all the participants and noted that Members would have to hold a discussion on the draft report of the Committee in view of the preparation of amendments, at a later stage.
1. Adoption of draft agenda
The draft agenda was adopted without change.
2. Election of the EP Co-Chair and Vice-Co-Chairs of the Euronest PA Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy
The following elections were made by acclamation: Co-Chair: Mr Michal BONI (Co-Chair, Poland, EPP); Vice-Co-Chairs: Ms Kati PIRI (Netherlands, S&D) and Ms Anna-Maria CORAZZA BILDT (Sweden, EPP).
3. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of the Euronest PA Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy of 11 February 2014 in Brussels
Vice-Co-Chair Ms ZOHRABYAN informed that proposals for modification to the draft minutes of the meeting of 11 February 2014 should be sent to the secretariat of the Euronest PA by 5 November 2014, at 10:00 am. Should no proposal be submitted, the minutes would be deemed adopted without modification.
4. Presentation by Mr Richard TIBBELS, Head of Division, European External Action Service (EEAS), Division for Eastern Partnership, Regional cooperation & OSCE, on the development of the Eastern Partnership for 2014-17 and the work programme 2014-17 of the Eastern Partnership Platform 1 - "Democracy, Good governance and Stability"
1 AP 101.837v01-00 Mr TIBBELS outlined recent developments of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) in general, and then, country by country. The EU and its partners face challenging times and, in the current context, should not deflect from their objectives. The EU will move ahead by ensuring that partnerships go hand in hand with a high degree of differentiation. A tailor-made approach, as a key principle of the EaP, has already taken shape. Three Association Agreements between the EU on one side and, respectively, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine on the other were signed. A strategic partnership for modernisation between the EU and Azerbaijan is under negotiation. Both Armenia and the EU are ready to consider a new level of relations. Recently, the EU and Belarus started negotiating a visa facilitation agreement, while there is room for an enhanced dialogue on broader topics. For all the six partner countries, the EU is open and committed to enhance bilateral relations, having in mind the principle of inclusiveness of the EaP. The work programme of the EaP Platform 1 has to be seen in the light of the outcome of the EaP Summit held in Vilnius. The Platform is inclusive and concentrates on three priority areas, namely: i. increased respect for human rights and fundamental values, fight against corruption, ii. enhancement of the independence of the judiciary, iii. reforms of public administration and cooperation on asylum, migration and effective border management. Mr TIBBELS concluded by underlining that parliamentary relationships were extremely important and were strengthened by contacts within the framework of the EaP Civil Society Forum and the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (CORLEAP).
Mr Tevan POGHOSYAN (Armenia) asked about the risk of losing the regional component of the EaP under the differentiation process, which he saw as an individualization process of the EaP. Referring to twinning activities, he also asked about the future of regional programmes under the forthcoming phase of implementation of the European Neighbourhood Instrument and the content of programmes regarding local government development.
Mr David DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) noted that EU MS visa issuance to Georgian citizens became only possible at EU MS consulates instead of border entries. He asked whether such restrictive measures were necessary. Referring to suspicions of selective justice in Georgia, he also asked how the EU would apply the principle of conditionality when granting its support to partner countries.
Mr Elkhan SULEYMANOV (Azerbaijan) called on the EU to treat Azerbaijan as a full-fledged member of the Eastern Partnership, respect it as a sovereign state and stop unjustified pressures on the country. Azerbaijan seeks more cooperation with the EU provided that the EU treats it as an equal partner, like it does with some other partner countries of the EaP. In particular, Azerbaijan would like to see the EU providing insurances about the country's territorial integrity and security as it does in the case of Ukraine. Referring to the report of the Committee of Human Rights of the Council of Europe on Azerbaijan, Mr SULEYMANOV explained that the mentioned cases of "political prisoners" fell within the judicial and legal spheres and not in the political one. He regretted that the European Parliament had recently adopted resolutions on human rights issues in Azerbaijan, based on unjustified accusations. In that respect, he mentioned that Ms Leyla Yunus was accused of state betrayal and was under investigation.
Mr Alexander ARZOUMANIAN (Armenia) regretted the decisions that the Armenian government had been forced to make with respect to changing its foreign policy towards the EU and joining the Eurasian Economic Union. He called on the EU not to punish Armenia but to sign the political provisions of the Association Agreement, before January 2015. A joint EU-Armenia platform in the economic area could also be launched in order to harmonize standards. Mr ARZOUMANIAN underlined the need to pay attention to human rights under the monitoring of multi- and bilateral relations within the EaP and voiced concerns about the specific case of Ms Leila Yunus in Azerbaijan.
2 AP 101.837v01-00 Vice-Co-Chair Ms ZOHRABYAN noted that the Council of Europe had given a clear definition and adopted clear criteria against which the status of "political prisoners" should be assessed.
Mr TIBBELS, answering the questions, said that there was no contradiction between regional and differentiated bilateral approaches of the EaP. There was no intention of losing the regional component of the EaP. The European Commission had recently approved the 2014-17 ENI regional programmes which would bring support in important areas, such as democracy building, energy and transport, education and border management. On local government development, it is worth noting that every partner country has its own constitutional setup and different level of delegated powers to local authorities. Twinning activities are rightly an element of regional programmes. Furthermore, the conclusions of an ongoing study providing comparative analyses on local governance should guide the European Commission and partners' authorities on refining support programmes.
As regards Georgia and visa policy issues, Mr TIBBELS first expressed confidence in the capacity and efforts of Georgia to achieve the EU-Georgia Visa Liberalisation Action Plan and saw good prospects to reach a visa free regime between the EU and Georgia. He also noted that the EU had expressed concerns in the past about the functioning of justice and supported the reform of judiciary to a very large extent in Georgia. On the basis of the 'more for more' principle, the EU can tailor the level of its financial support to the commitment of partners to implement reforms. If Georgia wants to go further in its relations with the EU and, in a way, wants to impose a conditionality to itself, the effective implementation of the Association Agreement, in all its aspects, is absolutely crucial.
As to Azerbaijan, the country is a full-fledged member of the Eastern Partnership. As this Partnership is based on common values, the EU seeks to see how they are turned into deeds in every partner country. The EU is not able to offer a DCFTA to Azerbaijan as the country is not a member of the World Trade Organisation. However, a strategic modernization partnership is on the table and could be signed under certain conditions.
Finally, he noted that the EU fully respects the decisions made by the Armenian leadership and wants the deepest possible relationship with Armenia. Bilateral exploratory talks on the future of the relationship are on-going, considering that Armenia has to work out the requirements of the Eurasian Economic Union and what they entail for its relation with the EU.
5. Presentation and exchange of views with Mr Steven BLOCKMANS, Senior Research Follow, Centre for European Policy Studies on the challenges facing the Eastern Partnership, in the context of sanctions implemented by EU and Russia, the conflict in eastern Ukraine and threats over security in Europe.
The presentation of Mr BLOCKMANS covered the achievements and key structural challenges of the Eastern Partnership that he identified. The most acute challenge for the success of the EaP is the one presented by Russia, which chooses to view the EU’s policy towards the shared neighbourhood as a zero-sum game for geopolitical dominance. Russia’s punitive measures in response to partner countries’ aspirations to associate more closely with the EU and Moscow’s coercive counter-offer to join the Eurasian Economic Union are cases in point. Mr BLOCKMANS saw developments of the Russian policy as hardly predictable and considered that the EU was right in keeping up its sanctions policy in reaction to a continuation of Russian violations of international law by waging war in Ukraine. He then raised the issue of how to take into account the ties between partner countries and Russia and the interests of the latter. Given Russia’s negative dedication to the EaP, the EU needs to coordinate its policy towards its partners with that towards Russia. These two sets of policies have to be correlated. This requires that: (i) the EU formulates a new strategy towards Russia; (ii) EU-Russia strategic summit meetings are at one point re-instated and provided with real
3 AP 101.837v01-00 content; (iii) greater regulatory convergence should be insured between the Association Agreements/DCFTAs and Eurasian Economic Union regulations.
Tackling the lack of a security dimension and short-term crisis management within the EaP, the EU could include managers of partner countries in crisis platform meetings, link up the EU’s crisis management bodies with the geographical divisions of the EEAS and ensure stronger EU coordination with NATO on neighbourhood issues.
Regarding the DCFTAs with Georgia, Moldova and, as of 2016, Ukraine, more attention of the EU is needed when the partners say they are reforming (e.g. adopting new laws) but not implementing. The EU should fight fake compliance by insisting on a track record of implementation before mobilising new funds and technical assistance. One could think about the application of a more bench-marked conditionality system similar to that used in the enlargement context.
Within the EaP, the merit-based approach for frontrunners could be improved, while maintaining unity within diversity. Further differentiation does not mean that the EaP as a regional framework should be abandoned. As a positive example, the visa-liberalisation process is highly differentiated, duly benchmarked and monitored. It is a functional tool for reform and modernization and accepted by all partner countries and could serve as a model for other areas. A degree of unity in the eastern neighbourhood is both desirable and possible. Regional and sub-regional dynamics do exist and economies of scale to tackle shared challenges and to tap into transnational opportunities would be lost if the multilateral component were to be abandoned.
Managing asymmetric expectations and overcoming splits among EU Member States on how to strengthen the EaP will remain challenging for the EU and its partners. For the EU, the EaP is about promoting European values and standards, with the export of the acquis serving as a template for reforms. For the partners, it is all about managing geopolitical challenges and opportunities. The conclusion of an Association Agreement/DCFTA is seen by partners as a stepping stone towards membership of the EU while EU Member States remain divided on granting these eastern ‘European’ countries an EU membership perspective. Here, the new EU High Representative/EC Vice-President should actively manage expectations by insisting on Association Agreement/DCFTA implementation while emphasising the symbolic value of visa liberalisation and sectoral integration through multilateral treaty frameworks.
Mr Hrant BAGRATYAN (Armenia) stressed the need to respect the existing trade relationship between Russia and partner countries and asked about the possibility of arranging trilateral agreements between the EU, Russia and partner countries in order to protect economic interests and improve trade conditions.
Mr Sergei STANISHEV (EP) stressed the lack of information and communication about the benefits of Association Agreements in the three partner countries concerned. He asked how to extract and explain benefits out of DCFTA texts of thousands pages and to make visible the results of EU-funded projects in partner countries.
Mr David DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) noted that there was no provision of DFCTAs which could harm trade relations of partner countries with Russia. He wondered whether the EU would see impediments in its trade relations with a partner country in case the latter would join the Eurasian Customs Union and asked about the compatibility of the Association Agreements/DCFTAs and the Eurasian Customs Union. He also gave his views on the reasons why Russia did not weight so much in order to prevent Georgia from signing an Association Agreement with the EU.
4 AP 101.837v01-00 Ms Norica NICOLAI (EP) voiced the opinion that Russia was playing a geopolitical game, by notably using security issues. She asked about the assessment of the EU diplomatic approach which materialised in multilateral talks for engaging in peace processes, such as the Geneva talks involving Russian and Georgian negotiators.
Mr Elkhan SULEYMANOV (Azerbaijan) underlined that Armenia had occupied Azerbaijani territories for over 23 years and asked about the reason for the lack of EU sanctions against Armenia, in contrast with the EU support to Ukraine.
Mr Tevan POGHOSYAN (Armenia) asked about the perspectives for Armenia in the frames of the Open Air Policy and donor conferences.
Mr Alexander ARZOUMANIAN (Armenia) put forward the aspiration of Armenia not to face closed doors to the EU but to find a path to get closer to it, at political and economic levels.
Answering the questions, Mr BLOCKMANS said that in the short term, the two trilateral agreements between the EU, Russia and Ukraine on the Ukrainian gas debt and Russian gas pricing, and the postponement of the entry into force of the EU-Ukraine DCFTA had been useful in accommodating various interests. However, such agreements are not a model that should be replicated for Moldova or Georgia, nor, in a longer term, for Ukraine, because the Kremlin had got what it wanted and every time "it asked for the finger, it wanted the arm" and had tried to divide and rule. As to information on DCFTAs, he referred to the factsheets / frequently asked questions provided by the European Commission - Directorate General for Trade, aiming to dispel rumours about negative impact and losses resulting from DCFTAs. These were published on the EU Delegations' web sites, especially at the intentions of the citizens of associated partner countries.
Mr BLOCKMANS mentioned the lack of WTO membership of Belarus and Kazakhstan as an impediment to future relations between the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. Mr TIBBELS echoed him by adding that economic regional integration should be based on sovereign choices made by states and WTO rules. The fact that Armenia is a WTO member could help import WTO standards into the Eurasian Customs Union, and thus limit, in the long term, the incompatibility between this Union and DCFTAs.
As regards peaceful dispute-settlement mechanisms, Mr BLOCKMANS noted that the EU had played a minor role, in particular in the Geneva talks and the 5+2 format negotiations on the Transnistrian issue. Besides, it had not been part of the Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Those mechanisms, which had failed, so far, to reach settlements of disputes, should be revived or replaced.
Mr TIBBELS underlined a contrast between the Russian reaction towards DCFTAs and the US position regarding the EU-Canada trade agreement for which the US had never raised objections or threats against their neighbour country. The EU does not share Russia's economic concept of subsiding domestic industry, defending non-competitive practices and exerting pressures on its neighbourhood. As to the visibility of DCFTAs and EU-funded projects in partner countries, the EU and its partners actively work on programmes such as the "Stronger together" programme in Ukraine. Similar projects exist in Moldova and Georgia. In the case of Moldova, visa liberalization is a key flagship in demonstrating the attractiveness of getting closer to the EU.
As regards the relations of the EU with Armenia, Mr TIBBELS made clear that the centrepiece of a donor conference would have been the implementation of an Association Agreement. Donor conferences should now be directed in priority to partner countries which are the most ambitious in their relations with the EU. More generally, the implementation of Association Agreements is the
5 AP 101.837v01-00 priority for EU Member States but is not an end in itself. No door is closed for longer term perspective but discussion should go on in order to prepare next steps.
6. Presentation by Dr. Beata MARTIN-ROZUMILOWICZ, Head of Election Department, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) - Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) on the 2014 election observation activities of the OSCE-ODIHR, in the Eastern European partner countries
In her presentation, Dr. Beata MARTIN-ROZUMILOWICZ briefed Members about recent election observation missions of OSCE-ODIHR and their follow-up in partner countries. She starting with addressing the situation of Armenia, where February 2013 presidential elections had been held under an improved legal framework and characterised by respect for fundamental freedoms. However, there was a low level of confidence and concerns on the integrity of the electoral process. On the follow-up of OSCE-ODIHR recommendations and after holding two round tables with political parties and civil society, there had been progress and positive steps through the implementation of legal reforms and changes to the electoral code. Next parliamentary elections should be held in May 2017 in Armenia. There are plans for holding a referendum on a constitutional reform in the autumn of 2015.
The presidential election of October 2013 in Azerbaijan had seen limitations of freedom of expression, assembly and association. Restrictions on media had also marred the campaign. Serious shortcomings should be addressed by Azerbaijan in order to fulfil OSCE electoral standards. No follow-up activity had been implemented by authorities. Next parliamentary elections are planned to be held in the autumn of 2015 in Azerbaijan.
She then reported that the OSCE-ODIHR observation mission had evaluated the presidential election of October 2013 in Georgia as free, transparent and efficiently administered. Fundamental freedoms had been respected and media had been less polarised than at previous elections. Gender balance issues and the use of administrative resources for elections had been tackled, as follow-up activities.
The last mission deployed to Belarus occurred for the 2012 parliamentary elections. Many OSCE commitments such as these related to freedom of expression had not been respected. The draft amendments to the electoral code, which were passed by the parliament in November 2013, do not meet OSCE commitments. Next presidential elections are scheduled to take place in November 2015.
In Moldova, an OSCE-ODIHR election observation mission was being deployed to observe parliamentary elections of 30 November 2014. Special attention would be given to voter registration lists, the administration of the elections and the financing of the campaign.
As regards presidential and parliamentary elections held respectively in May and October 2014 in Ukraine, the OSCE-ODIHR observation mission had assessed that they had marked an important step in the process of consolidating democracy in the country. Long-standing recommendations of the OSCE-ODIHR were progressively being turned into concrete measures.
Mr Hrant BAGRATYAN (Armenia) voiced the opinion that the main problems in Armenia were connected to the lists of voters and to the votes of non-residents.
Mr Elkhan SULEYMANOV (Azerbaijan) noted that the missions of the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had evaluated the last presidential elections in
6 AP 101.837v01-00 Azerbaijan as free, transparent and democratic in nature. The OSCE-ODIHR had only raised non- constructive criticisms while ignoring that most of its recommendations had been fulfilled by Azerbaijan. The OSCE-ODIHR election observation mission sent to Azerbaijan was composed of low ranking officials, who had easily become the targets of various kinds of pressure.
Mr David DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) asked the speaker's opinion on the political contest in Georgia and reminded that the first candidate from the opposition had been arrested before the presidential elections of October 2013.
Mr Tevan POGHOSYAN (Armenia) asked the speaker's opinion about the whole process of elections in Armenia and the specific aspects which required the biggest attention.
Dr. MARTIN-ROZUMILOWICZ answered that the voter registration was one of the mechanisms that had to be improved in many countries of the region, ensuring the balance between the integrity of elections and the right of non-residents to vote in their country of origin upon return. She noted that not only negative, but also positive aspects had been outlined in OSCE-ODIHR reports, in particular, in the case of Azerbaijan. The governments of partner countries should cooperate directly with the OSCE missions on the ground if they wanted to address certain issues. Commenting on Georgian elections, Dr. MARTIN-ROZUMILOWICZ said that the investigation of the mentioned trial case was currently ongoing. She concluded by saying that the OSCE-ODIHR had worked out a tailor-made approach and concentrated on all the elements of election processes starting from voter registrations, campaigns, media coverage until the counting of results and the way how complaints are treated after the holding of elections.
7. Presentation by Co-Rapporteur Mr Michal BONI, EP and discussion of the draft report on "Engaging in a stronger partnership between the EU and Eastern European partner countries through the European Neighbourhood Instrument for 2014-2020". Setting of a deadline for submitting amendments.
Co-Chair Mr BONI made a brief presentation of the draft report, which consists of two main parts: the first one refers to the achievements of the Eastern Partnership in order to open new prospects for 2014-2020, while the second one reflects on accomplishing EaP objectives by implementing the European Neighbourhood Instrument. He underlined the key messages of the draft report: (i) everything which had been achieved under the EaP had resulted from a sovereign choice of partner countries, also in line with the principle of differentiation applied by the EU; (ii) Russia's policies that violated international law were clearly to be condemned and Russia was called to refrain from expanding its political influence via economic pressures, threats over security and energy supply; (iii) the 2015 EaP Summit in Riga should be the occasion to show results in key priority areas such as democratic reforms, independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption; (iv) further progress is also expected in the fields of visa regimes and for the development of more strategic and result-oriented investment and cooperation programmes. In conclusion, Co-Chair Mr BONI underlined the importance of the report both as a guiding document for all stakeholders of the Eastern Partnership and as a joint commitment of the Members of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly.
Mr David DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) underlined the importance to remind the principles which united the EU and its Eastern European partner countries. He informed of his intention to submit amendments in order to outline the challenges faced by partner countries, in particular Georgia, with its breakaway region of Abkhazia.
Mr Borys TARASYUK (Ukraine) praised the balanced and well-done presentation of the situation of partner countries, as shown in the draft report. He announced that amendments concerning the
7 AP 101.837v01-00 adventurist and aggressive policy of Russia towards Ukraine would be tabled by the Ukrainian Delegation. Russia was pursuing a policy aiming to prevent Ukraine from exerting sovereign choices and independently conducting its foreign policy. Ukraine was facing a new type of war - an hybrid war - headed by Russia which was looking beyond Ukraine by testing the reaction of the West. Mr TARASYUK called on NATO member states to be vigilant as President Putin was ill- brained and had no limit in his aggressive policy.
Mr Elkhan SULEYMANOV (Azerbaijan) noted that as long as the territorial integrity of partner countries was not guaranteed, there would be no success for the Eastern Partnership. He proposed that the word "conflicts" be taken out of the report, as in general, that could lead to misunderstanding. There should be instead references to the occupation of Azerbaijani territories, by using the words "occupants" and "aggressors" in the report. Mr SULEYMANOV also wondered whether Armenia should retain the same level of EU budgetary support under the Eastern Partnership as it had decided to join the Eurasian Economic Union and invited the Co-Rapporteurs to reflect this fact in the report.
Mr Alexander ARZOUMANIAN (Armenia) referred to the resolutions of the UN Security Council which had qualified the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as a conflict between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. The only body which had been recognized by the UN Security Council for solving this conflict was the OSCE Minsk Group. He put forward the right of people to defend their land and self-determination, which are part of the principles at stake in the resolution of the conflict.
Mr Tevan POGHOSYAN (Armenia) drew the attention of Members on the dialogue as a value of the Eastern Partnership. But dialogue did not take place as regards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Support to dialogue should intensify at various levels, including at the level of people and communities who live in the disputed territories.
Co-Chair Mr BONI thanked Members for their comments and proposals for amendments to the draft report and committed to explore all the possibilities for finding compromises, balanced recommendations and appropriate wording in order to ensure the adoption of the report by the Committee.
The deadline for sending amendments to the draft report was set on 16 January 2015.
8. Planning and preparation of the Committee's activity for 2014-15
Co-Chair Mr BONI informed that the Committee would hold its next meeting on 16 March 2015, in Yerevan, ahead of the fourth plenary session of the EURONEST Parliamentary Assembly on 17 and 18 March 2015. He reminded that before the European elections of 2014, the Committee had selected the following topic as a priority for its next report: “Common positions and concerns of the EU Member States and Eastern European partner countries over foreign policy and external threats to their security”.
9. Any other business
None.
The meeting was closed at 12:24.
Encl. list of attendance
8 AP 101.837v01-00
Euronest Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire Euronest Parlamentarische Versammlung Euronest Парламентская Aссамблея Евронест
Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy
4 November 2014 Brussels
List of participants
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Members (12) Mr Michal BONI (Co-Chair, Poland, EPP) Ms Andrea BOCSKOR (Hungary, EPP) Mr Andi CRISTEA (Romania, S&D) Mr Ryszard CZARNECKI (Poland, ECR) Mr Mark DEMESMAEKER (Belgium, ECR) Mr Peter ERIKSSON (Sweden, Green/EFA) Ms Sandra KALNIETE (Latvia, EPP) Mr Notis MARIAS (Greece, ECR) Mr Marc JOULAUD (France, EPP) Ms Norica NICOLAI (Romania, ALDE) Ms Kati PIRI (Netherlands, S&D) Mr Sergei STANISHEV (Bulgaria, S&D).
ARMENIA
Members (7)
Ms Naira ZOHRABYAN (Vice Co-Chair) Mr Alexander ARZOUMANIAN, Mr Hrant BAGRATYAN - substitute Mr Aertsvik MINASYAN- substitute Mr Tevan POGHOSYAN - substitute Mr Mher SHAHGELDYAN - substitute Mr Artak ZAKARYAN - substitute
9 AP 101.837v01-00 AZERBAIJAN
Members (1) Mr Elkhan SULEYMANOV
GEORGIA
Members (2) Ms Eka BESALIA Mr David DARCHIASHVILI
MOLDOVA
Member (1) Mr Veaceslav IONITA- substitute
UKRAINE
Member (1) Mr Borys TARASYUK
10 AP 101.837v01-00