"EASTERN PARTNERSHIP" IS STUCK IN KARABAKH

In May 2008, the General Affairs & External Relations Council of the European Union (EU) presented the Eastern Partnership project. A year later, Prague hosted a founding meeting within the framework of the Eastern Partnership programme. The main goal of this project is to bring together the EU and six former Soviet countries - Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. Within its framework, under the supervision of the European Commission (EC), discussions are held on visa agreements and agreements on free trade and strategic partnership. In order to successfully implement the project and accelerate the European integration process, the EU has allocated 2 billion euros in financial assistance to these countries. And it is going to increase this amount to 16 billion.

At the same time, the EU is putting forward certain demands of a political, economic and legal nature, especially in the field of human rights and democratic principles. Only the conduct of appropriate reforms in these areas provides opportunities for the signing of an Association Agreement between the EU and the member countries of Eastern Partnership.

But the success of this integration project depends not only on close and constructive relations between the EU and former Soviet countries, but also mutual understanding and cooperation between the "Eastern neighbours" themselves.

Three of the former Soviet republics that are participating in the project have separatist entities in their territories and are involved in inter-ethnic and inter-state conflicts. These are Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova. And if the separatist entities in Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and Moldova (Transnistria) are actively supported by Russia, which is not a party to Eastern Partnership, in the case of Azerbaijan, 20 per cent of the country's territory is occupied by another participant in the project - Armenia. In addition, Yerevan raises territorial claims against neighbouring Georgia from time to time. Such a policy of Armenia a priori dooms Eastern Partnership to failure, since the very concept of partnership implies respect for each other's territorial integrity, constructive dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation.

It is no accident that during the Warsaw summit, EU President Herman Van Rompuy said that the EU's prosperity depends on the stability of our neighbours, including those in the East. It is noteworthy that in the past two years, the understanding of the relevance of this issue is increasingly confirmed by the European Union.

In particular, on 20 May 2010, the European Parliament (EP) adopted Resolution № 2216 "The need for a European Union strategy for the South Caucasus", which pays special attention to the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. The document requires the immediate withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the occupied Nagornyy Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and the surrounding districts, emphasizes the importance of resolving the conflict within the norms and principles of international law and territorial integrity of states, the need to ensure the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons and the possibility of their return to their homes. A separate clause of the resolution contained a clear message to Yerevan about the need to end the practice of holding the Azerbaijani population of Nagornyy Karabakh and surrounding areas in exile as a "political tool in the conflict".

As if to continue the resolution, on 18 April this year, a plenary session of the European Parliament adopted two other resolutions containing recommendations to the European Council, the EC and the European External Action Service in the negotiations on the EU's Association Agreement with Armenia. The document reaffirms the principles of the EP resolution of 20 May 2010 and urges the parties to the conflict to make greater efforts to resolve it. The resolution notes that the unresolved conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan undermines stability and development prospects in the region and creates obstacles for the development of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership programme. The document calls on the EU to promote stability in the South Caucasus region, helping to strengthen confidence-building measures between the parties through the promotion of intercultural dialogue and youth and student exchange. But most importantly, the resolution stresses that the main terms for the signing of association agreements directly with Azerbaijan and Armenia are the withdrawal of the Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani territories, the liberation of the occupied lands and their return under Azerbaijani control, the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes and guarantees for their security.

Thus, the European Parliament makes it clear to Yerevan that its destructive attitude is a major stumbling block in the peaceful settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, which in turn blocks the successful implementation of the Eastern Partnership project and the signing of association agreements with Azerbaijan and Armenia.

It should be noted that some leading European countries are also concerned about the unresolved status of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. In February this year, the foreign policy working committee of the faction of the CDU/CSU in the German Bundestag adopted a document in connection with the conflict in Nagornyy Karabakh (NK). The document entitled "20 Years of Conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh: A Fresh Impetus for a Peaceful Resolution" states that the Armenian armed forces occupied not only Nagornyy Karabakh itself, but also the surrounding seven Azerbaijani districts. It notes that the international community sees Nagornyy Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan: "It is the position of both Germany and the European Union that a permanent solution to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict can only come about by peaceful means. Neither Germany nor the EU recognized the parliamentary elections held in 2010 in Nagornyy Karabakh. The Minsk Group within the OSCE has been trying to find a solution to this now frozen conflict since the outbreak of the war in 1992. Despite its attempts at mediation which have been ongoing for 20 years, all efforts to overcome the status quo have been without success so far. All UN members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

Based on the aforesaid, the foreign policy working group of the parliamentary faction of the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union called on the federal government to increase attention to the conflict in Nagornyy Karabakh in cooperation with the OSCE, NATO and the UN. Securing a political and economic rapprochement between Azerbaijan and Armenia and settling the conflict in the region should be the basis of Eastern Partnership. It is also recommended to urge Russia to play a more constructive role to overcome the status quo in the conflict. It emphasizes the need to support Turkey in playing a fairer and more constructive role in resolving the conflict in the region. A very important recommendation is the appeal to the EU to increase its role in the process of solving the conflict and replace France in the EU's OSCE Minsk Group.

It should be noted that this recommendation was taken by the European Parliament on board. On 22 March this year, the EP Commission on Foreign Relations adopted a document containing a proposal to replace the French mandate in the OSCE mandate with an EU mandate. Now for a final decision, this document must be approved by the plenary session of the EP.

The adoption of all the above documents should be considered in the context of the EU's desire to increase its involvement in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, for which there is a good reason. One of the main points is that the role of the South Caucasus and the Caspian region has grown significantly in ensuring Europe's energy security. In this regard, a close partnership with Azerbaijan - the leader of the South Caucasus in all respects and a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, is of particular importance for the EU, as the country emerges as a reliable energy supplier and transit hub. But the unresolved status of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the high probability of renewed hostilities in the conflict zone pose a serious threat to the implementation of lucrative regional projects. That is why the status quo is not in the interest of the EU, which EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the Crisis in Georgia Philippe Lefort clearly stated during his recent visit to Baku. "The EU is deeply concerned about the current situation in the region. We believe that the status quo must change, and the problem must find its rapid and fair solution. We cannot allow a repeat outbreak of conflicts in the region," he said.

In addition, as has already been noted, the aggressive policy of Armenia is blocking the successful implementation of the Eastern Partnership project, which deals a serious blow to the image of the EU as a functioning single subject of international law. But all the attempts of the EU to establish dialogue and trust between the parties to the conflict have so far failed due to the destructive position of Armenia.

In this context, the EU's desire to replace France, which deliberately takes a pro-Armenian position, is a logical step. Attempts and promises of key political figures and forces of France to criminalize the denial of the fictional "genocide" and the unprecedented growth of xenophobic sentiment in recent years make it a weak link of the OSCE Minsk Group. And the majority of EU countries interested in cooperating with Azerbaijan and Turkey do not want France's position on all these issues to be identified as the position of the united Europe.

But will the EU be able to replace France in the OSCE Minsk Group? The EU has no mandate to make changes to the mission of the OSCE Minsk Group. To do this, first of all, the consent of the conflicting parties and member countries of the OSCE Minsk Group is required. Yerevan, as a party to the conflict, is unlikely to agree to lose an ally like Paris. On the other hand, will the UN endorse the modified mandate? Although it is possible that the entreaties of Washington and the political situation in France will be able to turn the tide in favour of the EU, with which the UN may also agree.

One of the main issues is how effective the role of the EU, which now has observer status in the "5 +2" format to resolve the conflict in Transnistria, will be in resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, especially considering the fact that for the EU, which consists of 27 countries, it will be difficult to achieve a unified approach to the Nagornyy Karabakh problem. Nevertheless, compared with the explicit pro-Armenian position of France, even such a situation is more appropriate.