27+6

The constituent summit of the European Union's Eastern Partnership op-ened on 7 May in the Czech capital, Prague. The EU commissioner for security and foreign policy, Javier Solana, told a press conference that the Eastern Partnership Programme will help the programme countries integrate into Europe and conduct reform. 

"This serves the interests of the EU and the continent as a whole as far as stability is concerned," Jose Manuel Barroso, chairman of the European Commission, said. 

The forum adopted a declaration which was signed by the 27 European Union member countries and the six countries in the programme (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova). 

It was decided that the heads of state and government of the Eastern Partnership Programme participants will meet every two years (foreign ministers will meet annually) and the first talks as part of the programme will be held in June 2009. 

The programme will work on four thematic platforms: first, democracy, good governance and stability; second, economic integration and convergence with EU sectoral policies; third, energy security; and four, contacts between people.

Membership of "united Europe" is not envisaged for the programme participants. Nevertheless, various steps will be taken in policy and the economy, including easing of the visa regime.

The six participants in the programme will be allocated 600 million euros by 2013 which will be spent on strengthening state institutions, border control and assistance to small businesses. The financial basis of the programme is expected to be gradually extended (the EU has approached a raft of international institutions in this regard, including the EBRD, the European Investment Bank and the IMF), although concrete figures have not been given.

The summit declaration, drawn up by the Czech Republic which holds the rotating EU presidency until 1 July, was corrected on the eve of the summit. While the participants in the programme were earlier referred to in the document as "European countries", after the corrections designations such as "Eastern European partners" and "partner countries" appeared. Moreover, the plans on easing the visa regime were assigned to the "long-term".

Germany, France, Italy and a number of other countries were the strongest supporters of these changes. Of the major European leaders, only German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended the summit. As for France, its president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is said to be less than enthusiastic about the Eastern Partnership, as he sees the programme as a rival to his Mediterranean Union initiative, about which, by the way, Berlin is sceptical.

Against this background, the summit's critics point out that the Eastern Partnership Programme makes clear to the participants that they shouldn't hope for more. While Brussels may have thought in the past about a possible expansion of its borders, now, after the world financial and economic crisis, the idea would seem to have received a conclusive "no". The EU has enough trouble without it, although Brussels does not want to let the former USSR countries out of its orbit either. In this context the Eastern Partnership looks like a "neither yes, nor no" initiative, ready to be expanded or contracted at a moment's notice.

Observers are made more cautious by the very mixed company that the Eastern Partnership Programme participants constitute. When you look at them, you can't help remembering the fable about "the swan, the crab and the pike". 

The programme countries often have very different foreign policies. For example, Georgia is clearly fixed on further rapprochement with the West, while Belarus's moves towards Europe are in no way comparable to their ties with the Russian Federation. Yerevan, despite the very strong Armenian lobby in the USA and some European countries, is described as Russia's last bridgehead in the South Caucasus. The domestic political situation is very unstable in Ukraine and it is genuinely unpredictable which way it will go, not to mention the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The presidents of Moldova and Belarus refused to come to the summit, sending their deputy premiers instead. The decision was probably the result of pressure from Moscow which considers the Eastern Partnership Programme an invasion of its sphere of strategic interests and an attempt to weaken the role of the CIS in the post-Soviet area.

Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka stated in an interview with Reuters that if anyone is thinking of making the Eastern Partnership anti-Russian, they will not succeed. "By taking part in the programme, we do not intend to turn away from Russia. It is very important for us that we finally have the opportunity to balance our foreign policy," Lukashenka said. "This should not be linked with some u-turn or turnaround in our policy." His reply contains a clear response to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement that, "There are those who may wish to present the invited participants with the tough choice: either you are with Russia, or with the European Union."

Sceptics comment on the relatively small sum allocated to the programme. Foreign publications themselves say that the mechanisms for the allocation of money and assessment of the success of reforms are not very clear. 

But what's most interesting is the degree to which, according to various observers, the Eastern Partnership owes its existence to the rivalry between the EU and Russia, which fears for its sphere of influence. Out of habit Moscow includes all the former Soviet republics except the Baltic countries in its sphere of influence. The European programme looks to the Kremlin like a continuation of the policy of NATO, with whom Russia has pretty heated relations, going as far as the mutual expulsion of diplomats.

Diametrically opposing predictions are made in this regard: some experts predict a brief future for the Eastern Partnership, while others think it's already time to start burying the CIS, the Collective Security Treaty and Eurasian Economic Community.

EU representatives do not acknowledge Russia's fears and repeat that competition with Moscow is not one of their aims at all. This point should be considered more carefully. The EU basically rejects such terms as "zone of influence" which in the context of last summer's armed conflict between Russia and Georgia does sound peaceful and a question of partnership. The policy of cooperation always wins in comparison with pressure by force.

"This partnership is not against anybody," European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said. "If this is what anybody thinks, then they are wrong. This partnership is for cooperation and stability in a very important region for Europe."

Addressing the summit in Prague, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stressed that the Eastern Partnership will give a boost to the further expansion of links between Azerbaijan and the European Union. Baku is a very significant partner for Europe and plays an important role in ensuring its energy security. Ilham Aliyev also told the forum about Armenia's continuing aggression against Azerbaijan. It should be said that stabilization of the situation in the countries participating in the Eastern Partnership is one of the stated aims of the programme. 

In this way, participation in the Eastern Partnership will in any case be beneficial to Azerbaijan, which has for many years already managed to maintain a balanced foreign policy. Baku cooperates successfully with both the West and Russia.

As for some aspects of the programme, for example, a potential clash of interests between Armenia and Azerbaijan, then, first, there is every reason to suppose that the European partners will take into account such complexities and try not to permit them, and, second, official Baku is always vigilant in upholding Azerbaijan's national interests.