EURONEST PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLÉE PARLEMENTAIRE EURONEST PARLAMENTARISCHE VERSAMMLUNG EURONEST ПАРЛАМЕНТСКАЯ AССАМБЛЕЯ ЕВРОНЕСТ Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy NEST_PV(2014)0211 MINUTES of the meeting of 11 February 2014, 09.00-12.30 Brussels The meeting opened on Tuesday 11 February 2014 at 09.15, with Co-Chairs Mr Gunnar HÖKMARK (European Parliament) and Mr Victor DOLIDZE (Parliament of Georgia) in the chair. Co-Chair Mr Gunnar HÖKMARK welcomed all the participants and noted that at this meeting, Members would have to hold a first 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. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of the Euronest PA Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy of 27 May 2013 in Brussels Co-Chair Mr HÖKMARK informed that proposals for modification to the draft minutes of the meeting of 27 May 2013 should be sent to the secretariat of the Euronest PA by 12 February 2014, at 10:00. Should no proposal be submitted, the minutes would be deemed adopted without modification. 3. Presentation by Mr Gunnar WIEGAND, Director, European External Action Service (EEAS), Directorate for Russia, Eastern Partnership, Central Asia, Regional cooperation & OSCE, on the prospect of the Eastern Partnership, until the 2015 Summit, in Riga Mr Gunnar WIEGAND gave an overview of the outcome of the Eastern Partnership following PV\1050578EN.doc AP101.502v01-00 EN EN the Summit of November 2013 in Vilnius and the prospects until the next Summit to be held in 2015 in Riga. He first stressed a much higher degree of mutual political engagement between the EU and every partner country as well as collectively since the Eastern Partnership was launched at the Prague Summit in 2009. He then explained that the Eastern Partnership was not a policy projected by Brussels only and imposed on partner countries but rather a common policy with joint ownership. Although the Vilnius Summit was dominated by the "U-turn" of Ukrainian President Yanukovich, it led to the initialling of the Association Agreements with Moldova and Georgia as well as the signature of the visa facilitation agreement with Azerbaijan. Furthermore, at this Summit, Belarusian officials announced a change of position towards an agreement with the EU on visa facilitation and readmission. Mr WIEGAND took the view that the last events in Ukraine had demonstrated the impact of the Eastern Partnership. He stressed the high level engagement of the EU, shown by the frequent visits of EU High Representative Ashton and Commissioner Füle to Kyiv, aiming at de- escalating the situation, coming to a proper political process, and rendering a concrete package of economic and financial aid, provided there would be a new and inclusive government with a clear economic reform programme. Mr WIEGAND then drew five lessons of from the last events, which are of importance to further progress towards the Riga Summit in 2015. First, the EU cannot offer the same perspectives to every partner country, given the multi-speed and multi-demand reality on the ground. For this reason, more differentiation in bilateral relations would be needed. The deepest relations would materialise in political association and economic integration which is what Georgia and Moldova were going to achieve. In this regard, Mr WIEGAND underlined that the EU hoped and believed that Ukraine would continue to strive for that integration process too. While there is a slower process with regard to the relations with Azerbaijan, he pointed out that the EU regretted but at the same time respected the decision made by Armenia to take a different course and not to sign an Association Agreement. As a consequence, there is a need to reflect on what is possible in the spirit of the Eastern Partnership with a partner country which should soon be member of the Custom Union and of the future Eurasian Union. This would also be an important reference point as regards the future of the EU-Belarus relations. Moreover, despite the recognition of differences among partner countries, the EU should ensure that European values remain at the heart of each bilateral relationship. The second lesson is the necessity of maintaining a high level of political engagement with every partner country. This engagement should not be the privilege of executive powers, but should have a legislative dimension. Following the entry into force of Association Agreements, Parliamentary Association Committees will be set up as part of new institutional architectures. MEPs should play a key role in assisting their colleagues involved in the process of implementing the EU acquis into national legislations. The third lesson is that the Eastern Partnership should reach out to broader civil society. In particular, civil society actors directly affected by EU policies such as business communities should be further involved in their preparation and their implementation. The EU should also engage more with civil society in areas such as education, research, innovation and in terms of people-to-people contacts at various levels. Fourth, it is needed to improve the public impact of the Eastern Partnership. As the EU cannot do the campaigning alone, Mr WIEGAND called on Members of Parliaments to put more pressure on their national governments in order to increase efforts for this purpose. Fifth, the dialogue with the Russian Federation on the Eastern Partnership should be intensified. Mr WIEGAND reminded that during the EU- Russia Summit in January 2014, the Eastern Partnership was at the centre of the debate and he AP101.502v01-00 2/13 PV\1050578EN.doc EN also informed about upcoming formal consultations on the impact of Association Agreements including DCFTAs on Russian economy as agreed at that Summit. He added that the EU would make every effort to dispel misconceptions and to make sure people understand that there is no negative impact of DCFTAs on Russian economy but rather new opportunities for Russian business operators. However, he also pointed out that these talks should not be understood as renegotiations or trilateral consultations but as bilateral consultations about an existing agreement which the EU had negotiated with Ukraine. He concluded by stressing that the EU did not believe in zero-sum thinking on the European continent and that the EU foreign policy was geared towards the creation of new trade and investment opportunities. Sovereignty and freedom of choice must be guaranteed for every partner country and the EU rejects external pressures on any of its partners. While thanking Mr WIEGAND for his presentation, Co-Chair Mr DOLIDZE stressed the commitment of the Members to fulfil their legislative role within the Eastern Partnership. Co-Chair Mr HÖKMARK emphasised that the EU did not aim at imposing the future of any neighbouring countries and this conduct had also applied to the Euronest PA. He gave the example of the recent referendum on migration policy held in Switzerland independently of EU interference. This illustrated a significant and fundamental difference with what Russia had tried to do towards its neighbours, by exerting pressures. Moreover, Russian pressure gave a very awkward signal that democratic development in its neighbourhood was perceived as a negative factor by Russia. Besides, Co-Chair Mr HÖKMARK pointed out that it was not in the Russian interest to hinder such democratic development. He also asked whether trade sanctions taken by Russia were consistent with its membership in the World Trade Organisation and what the EU could do about this issue in the WTO framework. Mr David DARCHIASHVILI (Georgia) interpreted Russian last political steps as a will to have some kind of say in the Eastern Partnership and somehow become part of the decision- making process. He wondered what could be the added value of bilateral consultations of the EU with Russia, if this perception corresponds to reality. Mr WIEGAND pointed out that criticisms from Russia went out very late in the negotiating process of Association Agreements. The EU had never received Russian official papers raising objections or depicting a negative impact on partner countries, resulting from those Agreements. The EU remained ready to respond to any objections and wrong assumptions. Mr WIEGAND underlined that in reaction to the recently signed EU-Canada trade agreement which is far more-reaching than the NAFTA agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico, the US did not suddenly close their borders with Canada and did not ask the EU for urgent consultations. This new agreement was seen as an instrument bringing more opportunities for the Northern American and European markets. It could have only been negatively perceived when adopting a static view on economy. The purpose of future consultations with Russia should therefore consist of dispelling misperceptions. Mr Asim MOLLAZADE (Azerbaijan) expressed fears of new threats and pressures emerging after the Olympic Games in Sochi. He illustrated current diverging views between the EU and Russia by drawing a comparison with different sports practised by two players. He reminded that for several years, Russia had threatened the independence of states coming from the former Soviet Union. He asked whether the EU was ready to more comprehensively help the partner countries which are about to sign Association Agreements, and to contribute to terminate the foreign occupation of Azerbaijani territories, in line with EU resolutions. He also asked about political, economic and security guarantees that those countries could expect PV\1050578EN.doc 3/13 AP101.502v01-00 EN the EU to offer. Mr Artak ZAKARYAN (Armenia) thanked the EP Co-Chair for the constructive atmosphere of the meeting. He put forward that deepening relations with the EU remained a vector of the Armenian foreign policy.