NOTHING PERSONAL, JUST BUSINESS

Energy, security, measures to facilitate contacts between EU citizens and countries taking part in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) programme, as well as preparation for next year's EaP summit in Riga were the main topics of the fourth informal meeting of EaP member countries' foreign ministers held in Baku.

By virtue of the topics given above, the informal meeting began with a sitting of ministers responsible for energy issues, with the participation of EU Commissioner for Energy Gunther Oettinger and EU Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Stefan Fule.

The latter also took part in a follow-up meeting at the level of foreign ministers of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova and deputy foreign ministers of Belarus and Ukraine. The meeting was joined by EU Deputy High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Helga Schmidt. Despite invitation, the Armenian delegation ignored the event.

At both meetings, Stefan Fule immediately made it clear that all discussions would be conducted in the context of current events in Ukraine. "The outcome of the informal meeting could be and should be strengthening the positions of Eastern partners, in particular Ukraine," the commissioner said. He also expressed hope for a better understanding of "what can be done jointly to bring peace and stability to the region."

Of special importance at the meeting of foreign ministers was the EU's statement of support for the territorial integrity of all EaP member countries and the inadmissibility of changing the internationally recognised borders of the states, which was also inspired by the current events in Ukraine. Later, Stefan Fule made it clear that this statement did not carry much weight, which will be analysed below in more detail.

The parties' statements based on discussions of the energy component of the meeting within the EaP framework were less declarative and referred to specific ideas. In particular, Minister of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine Yuriy Prodan said that his country was interested in the delivery of Azerbaijani oil to Ukrainian refineries. The Minister said that options of oil supplies were being discussed with the Azerbaijani side.

EU Commissioner for Energy Gunther Oettinger noted that the Eastern Partnership countries have "different capacities and priorities, but they are willing to work together." Thus, Azerbaijan has a long experience in the field of oil production and can act as an energy exporter. Georgia is a reliable transit country and has great potential in the field of hydropower and energy storage, as well as can play an important role in the export of LNG from the Black Sea coast. Ukraine and Belarus are important transit countries as regards the supply of gas to the EU.

For its part, the EU, according to Oettinger, is ready to assist Eastern Partnership countries in the development of advanced technologies and infrastructure and to develop cooperation in such areas as modernising the existing pipelines and spurring investments in regional projects.

In his speech, Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov noted that, despite the different approaches of six post-Soviet countries to the Eastern Partnership, they shared a common intention to promote the development of the programme and properly prepare for the Riga summit. Admittedly, these different approaches, which became apparent a year ago at the EaP summit in Vilnius, have only worsened now. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, which had signed an association agreement with the EU, made it clear that the rapprochement with Brussels was a priority in their foreign policy. Meanwhile, Belarus and Azerbaijan with their policies traditionally combining their own interests with those of the nearest neighbours, found this approach unacceptable. Moreover, Brussels, based on its bitter experience of what happened in Ukraine a year ago, now agrees that the signing of the Association Agreement should not be a mandatory requirement for participation in the EaP programme. Especially when it comes to Azerbaijan which is a key partner of the West as regards energy security and security in general. As for Armenia, it has long become a "dead weight" for Eastern Partnership. A decision adopted by Yerevan a year ago to radically reconsider its participation in the EaP, thus having exchanged the European integration for membership in Russia's Customs Union, was an unpleasant surprise for the EU. At the moment, Brussels seems to be undecided over what to do with the sixth EaP member, which easily swaps horses in midstream and frankly implies that Armenia and Europe are going different ways.

At the same time, Azerbaijan has a number of questions to the EU. As was noted, the Republic, among other things, plays a key role in dealing with the issue of energy security that is so topical for Europe. In so doing, Azerbaijan has undertaken certain risks, not being afraid of criticism from Russia, which is a major supplier of natural gas to Europe. Here we are not talking about economic competition (as the volumes of gas supplied from Azerbaijan and Russia to Europe are not comparable) but about the fact that a small South Caucasus republic breaks into the area of Russia's traditional economic influence.

Clearly, Azerbaijan has the right to expect that the risk it has undertaken for the sake of solving one of the most pressing problems in Europe will be properly appreciated and matched with the corresponding attitude to issues that raise concern in Baku. We are talking, first and foremost, about the problem of violation of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan by Armenia and about the attitude to this situation in Europe. In the meantime, the attitude is that of indifference, and this cannot but disturbs Baku. Some optimism about the possibility of changing this approach appeared after Europe was actively involved in resolving the situation in Ukraine. Some might have thought in Baku, "It was a blessing in disguise." But it was not to be. Europeans have not been perturbed even by armed clashes in the Karabakh conflict zone in early August, which entailed the loss of human lives on both sides, and open threats by Armenia to launch a missile strike on civilian targets in Azerbaijan, including the capital, Baku, and gas infrastructure that is so valuable for Europe. "It is not normal to draw parallels between Crimea and Karabakh," EU Commissioner Stefan Fule openly declared at the above meeting in Baku. By some strange logic of the European diplomat, the events in Crimea, in contrast to the occupation of Nagornyy Karabakh, were "illegal annexation."

Azerbaijan can ask Europe a very simple question: why do Western leaders respond so vigorously to violation of the territorial integrity of one strategic partner, Ukraine, which took place just a few months ago, actively trying to rectify the situation and mobilise all forces to impose sanctions on the perceived aggressor, while a similar problem facing another strategic partner of the West, Azerbaijan, which has been lasting for more than two decades, does not produce the same kind of response?

The rather that Europe has more than enough opportunities to put pressure on Armenia, which is tied to Europe in many ways, including the Eastern Partnership. Paraphrasing a well-known saying, the Europeans evidently want to "consume" the Azerbaijani gas and retain relations with Armenia. The difference in the approaches to conflicts in Ukraine and Azerbaijan is apparently based on the following logic of the Europeans: "Access to Azerbaijani gas is a settled matter, while the stability of the supply of Russian gas through the territory of an unstable Ukraine will take some effort to ensure."

Yet another clear manifestation of "double standards" as applied to the same issue of violation of the territorial integrity within the EU's sphere of responsibility gives Azerbaijan grounds for a more pragmatic approach to cooperation with Europe. Because in replenishing its energy needs at the expense of the republic and turning a blind eye to the protection of the rights of Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons (Azerbaijan ranks No. 1 in Europe regarding their number in relation to the total population), Europe somehow feels entitled to constantly lecture on its norms of democracy. So much the more that Azerbaijan has alternatives. Despite all the movement towards Europe, Azerbaijan, unlike some other EaP member countries, has managed to maintain good relations with Russia. Russia has long been stating that it is prepared to buy all the Azerbaijani gas at a price that is not lower than the price in Europe. Azerbaijan may reconsider its attitude towards integration associations under the auspices of Moscow. Russia is also a traditional importer of Azerbaijani agricultural products and in the context of mutual sanctions imposed by Europe and Russia against each other, the Russian market already now requires an increase in the supply of agricultural products - and not just from Azerbaijan alone. Meanwhile, speaking about the possible solutions to his country's problems of food security in the light of the Western sanctions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently admitted that "the fruit from Azerbaijan are tastier and of higher quality than those coming from Europe."

Of course, this is but one of the hypothetical scenarios. In any case, Azerbaijan has certainly drawn its own conclusions from the policy conducted by Europe, proceeding from a well-known principle of "nothing personal, just business," and will act accordingly.