1
Acknowledgements
Writing a Master Thesis which is a final part of the study program has given me the
practical understanding of how the theoretical set off tools acquired when studying
deferent disciplines in the Aarhus School of Business can be applied to the real set of
circumstances. Writing the Thesis has been both challenging in terms of time
contribution and efforts as well as rewarding in terms of experience gained. But it
would be impossible to carry out this study without support of people who
contributed to my work.
Therefore, I would like to express my gratitude to people who even very slightly
contributed to this paper, would it be making suggestions, providing information, or
merely cheering with the kind word. I would like to thank Professor Rajesh Kumar,
the supervisor of the Master Thesis, gratefully, for supporting the ideas and his
professional involvement. Special thanks also to the people who found the time in
their tough schedule to provided information so valuable to this paper by means of
interviews.
2
Abstract
The issue of a secure world is something that has been a matter of greatest fear and
concern during the centuries. Security is “the condition of being protected from or
not exposed to danger, […] a feeling of safety or freedom from or absence of danger”
(Oxford English Dictionary).
This study examines the effectiveness of European Neighborhood Policy (ENP),
based upon the agreed activities in the EU/Georgian relation.
By the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, Europe has entered its new,
historical phase. Hence, the policy of the European Union since 2004 has been an
intensive cooperation and support to democratic processes with the new member
states and their neighbors. EU is directly interested in promoting security and stability
in the countries both within and outside of EU. These are caused by common political
and economic interests of the EU and its neighboring and geographically close
countries.
Originally, the ENP was intended to apply to its direct neighbors – Algeria, Belarus,
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority,
Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine. In 2004, it was extended also including countries of the
Southern Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, with whom new member
states Bulgaria, Romania and present candidate country Turkey share either a
maritime or land border
The list of countries involved in ENP could be divided into four groups: Eastern
Europe, South Caucasus, Middle East and North African Countries. The EU has
different approaches to each of the countries individually and also regionally.
Keywords: European Union, European Neighborhood Policy, International
Negotiation, Regional Cooperation, Security, South Caucasus Region, Georgia.
3
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................................1
I Introduction
......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1
Background ...........................................................................................................................7
1.2 The Purpose ...................................................................................................................................8
1.3 Problem Statement.........................................................................................................................8
1.4 Case: EU interests towards Georgia ..........................................................................................11
1.5 Delimitations of the Thesis ..........................................................................................................12
1.6 Abbreviations...............................................................................................................................13
1.7 The outline of the thesis ...............................................................................................................15
1.8 Disposition...................................................................................................................................16
II Methodology
....................................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Research Strategy ........................................................................................................................17
2.2 Research Design ..........................................................................................................................18
2.3 Research approach ......................................................................................................................19
2.4 Scientific reasoning .....................................................................................................................19
2.5 Qualitative research ....................................................................................................................20
2.6 Data collection ............................................................................................................................21
2.6.1 Primary data ........................................................................................................................21
2.6.2 Secondary data ....................................................................................................................22
2.7 Triangulation ...............................................................................................................................22
2.8 Evaluation of research results .....................................................................................................23
2.9 Material .......................................................................................................................................25
III Theoretical Background
....................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Theoretical Framework ...............................................................................................................26
3.2 Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) ................................................................................29
3.3 New Regionalism .........................................................................................................................31
3.4 International Negotiation Theory ................................................................................................32
3.4.1 “Relationship” Interests ......................................................................................................34
IV Empirical Studies
....................................................................................................................................................................... 35
4.1 European Union: as a power in International Relations.............................................................35
4
4.2 Legal foundation for the European Unions Foreign Policy ........................................................35
4.2.1 Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ....................................................................35
4.2.2 European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) ..................................................................36
4.2.3 European Security Strategy (ESS), tool for strategic relations............................................37
4.3 The European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) ................................................................................37
4.4 Regional Cooperation..................................................................................................................39
4. 5 EU Russian Relationship and Geopolitics of the Energy Supply................................................40
4.5.1 Europe’s Troubling Dependence .........................................................................................40
4.6 Georgia: country overview ..........................................................................................................41
4.6.1 Political stability ..................................................................................................................42
4.6.2 Economic situation ..............................................................................................................43
4.6.3 Membership of Different Organizations ..............................................................................46
4.6.4 Georgia - Russian Relationship ...........................................................................................47
4.7 South Caucasus Region ...............................................................................................................49
4.7.1 Similarities within the South Caucasus................................................................................50
4.7.2 Differences within the South Caucasus................................................................................50
4.8 Regional Cooperation within South Caucasus ............................................................................50
4.8.1 Energy ..................................................................................................................................50
4.8.2 Transportation .....................................................................................................................51
4.9 EU-Georgia Relation under Partnership and Cooperation Agreement ......................................52
4.10 EU-Georgia ENP development process ....................................................................................53
V Analyses
....................................................................................................................................................................... 55
5.1 EU-Georgia Interests and ENP Negotiation process ..................................................................55
5.1.2 EU-Georgia “Relationship” Interests .................................................................................56
5.1.3 ENPAP Negotiation process ................................................................................................57
5.2 Security Challenges .....................................................................................................................58
5.3 Military Sector .............................................................................................................................59
5.3.1 Conflict resolution ...............................................................................................................60
5.4 Political Sector ............................................................................................................................61
5.5 Social/Societal Sector ..................................................................................................................62
5.5.1 Internal conflicts ..................................................................................................................63
5.5.2 Human Rights ......................................................................................................................63
5.6 Economic Sector ..........................................................................................................................64
5.6.1 Free Trade ...........................................................................................................................64
5.7 Environmental Sector ..................................................................................................................65
5.8 What do facts in these five sectors speak for? .............................................................................66
5.9 ENP and Security Challenges in the Regional Context ...............................................................67
5.10 Regional Cooperation and South Caucasus ..............................................................................69
5.11 ENP Tool for Regional Cooperation .........................................................................................69
5.12 EU-Georgia: reasons for engagement.......................................................................................70
5.12.1 The common security context of the EU and Georgia .......................................................70
5.12.2 Securing a stable European energy supply ........................................................................71
5
5.13 Summary of the chapter .............................................................................................................72
VI Outcomes
....................................................................................................................................................................... 74
6.1 Evaluation of EU interests towards Georgia ...............................................................................74
6.2 Evaluation Georgian interests under the Action Plan .................................................................75
VII Conclusion
....................................................................................................................................................................... 77
References: .................................................................................................................................................... 79
Books ............................................................................................................................................79
Articles..........................................................................................................................................80
The European Union institution Official Documents ...................................................................83
Interviews .....................................................................................................................................85
Internet ..........................................................................................................................................86
Appendixes:................................................................................................................................................... 88
Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................................88
Appendix 2 ...................................................................................................................................90
Appendix 3 ...................................................................................................................................90
Appendix 4 ...................................................................................................................................91
Appendix 5 ...................................................................................................................................92
Appendix 6 ...................................................................................................................................93
Appendix 7 ...................................................................................................................................94
Appendix 8 ...................................................................................................................................95
Appendix 9 ...................................................................................................................................96
Appendix 10 .................................................................................................................................98
Appendix 11 .................................................................................................................................98
Appendix 12 .................................................................................................................................99
6
I Introduction
This chapter introduces the subject and then the purpose of this thesis. This part
opens with introduction of background and purpose for undertaking this study. The
information regarding the ENP/Georgia is presented in this part along with the
definition of major problem questions which need to be answered during this study.
The chapter is concluded with a disposition presenting the chapters and finally, the
structure of the thesis is provided.
1.1 Background
In recent years, nations around the world have attempted to develop strategies that
will make their citizens and their territories more secure. The European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was developed in an effort to combat some of the
security issues that exists in Europe. Georgia's inclusion in the ENP has put the
country in a new “Wider Europe” context which still needs to be shaped (A.
Gegeshidze 2006).
Georgia has not always been at the centre of attention for European Union and there
have been different political reasons for the lack of attention. However, more recent
developments have made the need for increased cooperation difficult to ignore. With
Romania and Bulgaria's accession, the EU enlarged to the Black Sea shores and
provided itself with long-term perspective in a region that is vital to its security and
foreign policy ambitions (M. Vahl 2005).
The EU is keen on maintaining its borders safe and secure from external risks such as
illegal migration, environmental degradation and economic crisis. In order to meet
these objectives, the EU promotes democratic and economic reforms in the countries
located along its borders and in doing so strives to foster political stability and
7
security in these regions. The ENP comprises a number of policy instruments to
promote closer mutual relations below the line of EU membership.
Security is essential for Georgia to sustain political and economic stabilization where
society can live in peaceful environment. As a result of numerous related security
issues Georgia have already implemented various policies but still is on a way for
more changes. By accepting ENP Georgian government believes that this policy will
help to reduce and even eliminate internal and external threats as European Union is
an expert of developing such policies (Bretherton & Vogler 1999).
Authorities believe that this Policy will further enhance the European Union’s ability
to secure the neighbourhood against different threats. In addition the ENP is designed
to enhance the economy and the overall quality of life that exist in the region.
1.2 The Purpose
The aim for this thesis is to visualize the policy outcome of the ENP concerning the
EU-Georgian relation. The studies in this paper will be directed towards EU-Georgian
relations using ENP as a strategic tool for political analyses. Hence, the goal of the
paper is to explore the level of interest of the EU towards Georgia and vice versa. The
aim is to define the guiding principals in terms of bilateral engagement, supported by
theoretical and empirical evidence.
1.3 Problem Statement
The main problem arising from the background of the research purpose is formulated
in following:
8
To reach my purpose, the following questions are asked:
Main Problem
What is the aspiration for
EU-Georgia relations within
the ENP process?
In order to answer the main problem question it is divided in three sub-questions,
each of them corresponding to the major influences guiding EU actions in Georgia
and examines areas where the EU can upgrade its political role in Georgia.
Sub-Problem 1
What are the goals for the EU regarding the ENP concerning
Georgia?
The first sub-problem concerns the EU and Georgia relations is their partnership
which sets up from 1992, when EU has recognized Georgia as an independent state.
For better understanding of present and future of this cooperation it is important to
analyze past. From 1992 to 2004 the EU has provided number of technical,
humanitarian and security assistance but interest towards Georgia remained very low.
This question supplies the thesis with an empirical ground for analyses.
9
Sub-Problem 2
What are the main reasons for EU’s greater interest inviting
Georgia in ENP?
Another layer affecting the influence of different factors leads us towards Georgia’s
inclusion in ENP. After Georgia was offered to participate in European Neighborhood
Policy, relationships between EU and Georgia became more important. This might be
caused by different political, economic, socio-cultural and other factors. The second
sub question provides the paper with analyses.
Sub-Problem 3
What are the achievements and planned actions in the ENP
concerning EU/Georgian relation?
The third and final sub-question was designed to find out limits, principles and
instruments which are used by the EU in the ENP concerning EU/Georgian relation
Thus last question is decisive to visualize meaning, motives and reasons of the ENP
concerning the EU/Georgian relation in which the EU has declared important,
regional cooperation.
10
1.4 Case: EU interests towards Georgia
At the beginning of the 21st century Georgia has clearly set priorities for its foreign
policy - the top priority of the country has been integration in western, Euro-Atlantic
military-political and economic structures.
In 2004, the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP)1 was developed in the context of
the EU’s latest enlargement, with the objectives: avoiding the emergence of new
dividing lines between the enlarged EU and its neighbors and strengthening stability,
security and well-being for the participant countries.
Increasing importance of Georgia and invitation in ENP has been consequential after
various important events. Since 2003 Georgia managed to arouse the interests of
Europe with its accelerated reforms, improved budgeting discipline, and significant
reduction in corruption. The World Bank's “Anti-Corruption in Transition 3” report
places Georgia among the countries showing the most dramatic improvement in the
struggle against corruption, due to implementation of a strong program of economic
and institutional reform, and reported reductions in the burden of bribes paid by firms
in the course of doing business2 (See Figures 1; 2; 3; 4; in Appendix 1). Democratic
changes of the country have caused bigger interest of Europe towards Georgia as well
the whole South Caucasus region. In particular, Georgia has shown to European
partners that it is on the road to successful transformation (G. Nodia 2005). Also
geographical proximity has given the new opportunities to the events which aim
modernizing Georgia as a state, getting its political, legal and administrative system
closer to European standards.
It is in the interests of EU to make Georgia – as a key section of the Eurasia Corridor
– institutionally strong to be able to oppose the risks associated with drug transit and
1
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/world/enp/policy_en.htm
World Bank Report: “Corruption Eased in Transition Countries from 2002-2005” July 26, 2006
2
http://web.worldbank.org
11
export of other forms of crime and illegal migration into Europe. Besides, Europe
recognizes current or potential challenges of energy security, pays more attention to
the new objective of finding alternative energy resources. In this context, Caspian
energy sources and Georgia, as a transit country of these resources to Europe is of a
bigger interest. This interest has become more significant after finalizing BakuTbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) and South Caucasus Pipelines (SCP) projects (Appendix 2)
(Starr S.F and Cornell S. 2005).
Europe recognizes threats that are associated with conflicts within Georgia
(Abkhazia3 and South Ossetia4). Internal conflicts in Georgia may result in rising
tensions within whole Caucasus Region in the future. It is in Georgia’s, as well as
EU’s interest to peacefully resolve these conflicts in order to avoid the threat of
blockades and confrontations, leading to a war in the region, that in its turn could
have direct or indirect influence on the security of EU member and candidate
countries (Lynch, Dov 2006).
This study aims to analyze what ENP means in practice and how ENP Action Plan is
implemented, choosing one partner country, Georgia (Appendix 3).
1.5 Delimitations of the Thesis
This thesis has some delimitation. It concerns the scope and the time aspect. The full
scope of the EU’s foreign policy is not examined in this paper, neither all the aspects
of the European Neighborhood Policy. Instead, one particular field of interest is
provided to the reader, explaining why this study is of importance describing the EU
and Georgia Relation. Delimitation is the time aspect. The latest reports, statements
and agreements have been searched. Written official materials from the European
Union as well as Georgian Republic have been used in my analysis. Some interviews
3
4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia
12
have been conducted to check the information. The latest developments and the
current positions are in focus.
1.6 Abbreviations
AP - Action Plan
BSEC - Black Sea Economic Cooperation
BTC - Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
CFSP - Common Foreign and Security Policy
CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States
CSP - Country Strategy Paper
EC - European Commission
ENP - European Neighborhood Policy
ENPAP - European Neighborhood Policy Action Plan
ESDP - European Security and Defense Policy
ESS - European Security Strategy
EU - European Union
GATT - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP - Growth of Domestic Product
GSP - General System of Preferences
GUAM - Georgia-Ukraine-Azerbaijan-Moldova
IMF - International Monetary Fund
IPAP - Individual Partnership Action Plan
IR - International Relations
13
IREO - International Regional Economic Organization
MFN - Most Favored Nation
MP - Member of Parliament
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization
PCA - Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
RSC - Regional Security Complex
RSCT - Regional Security Complex Theory
SCP - South Caucasus Pipelines
TRACECA - Transportation Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia
UN - United Nations
USD – United States Dollar
USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WB - World Bank
WTO - World Trade Organization
14
1.7 The outline of the thesis
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Methodology
Chapter 3
Theoretical Background
Chapter 4
European Union
Georgia
Empirical
ENP
Study
South Caucasus Region
EU-Georgia Relations
Chapter 5
Analyses of
1)
ENP
Negotiation
Processes
2) ENP Security
Challenges by
Action Plan
3) ENP and
Regional
Cooperation
Empirical
Results
EU-Georgia
EU-Georgia-South
Caucasus
Chapter 6
Survey findings
Chapter 7
Conclusion
15
1.8 Disposition
Materials are presented and so is critique of the sources used in this study. The thesis
is organized in the following way:
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the topic of the study, states the research aims and
questions, and outlines the methodology and research design including a review of
the literature pertinent to this topic;
Chapter 2 presents methodology used for this thesis;
Chapter 3 provides framework of theoretical background for the study provides the
theoretical framework. The main premises of theory will underline the specific
dimension of the study; give an order and classification to the thesis. In this
chapter, the analytical framework and terminology will be explained;
Chapter 4 delivers empirical studies, and focuses on the ENP security area and
how it values security partnership. The security sectors will be explained and main
security challenges that the EU and Georgia face will be examined;
Chapter 5 makes basic analyses of empirical and theoretical approach. It comprises
the evaluation of the ENP towards Georgia and Regional Cooperation;
Chapter 6 sets out the main outcomes from the research;
Chapter 7 concludes the research;
16
II Methodology
Every type of the study implies use of different scientific methods. The purpose of
current chapter aims at providing methodological base used in the thesis. Research
strategy and design, scientific reasoning of the paper and data collection method is
examined. Finally, the process of analyzing the data and evaluation of obtained
research results is discussed.
2.1 Research Strategy
There are several strategies researchers employ when undertaking social studies.
These strategies vary depending on the purpose of the research, thus researcher must
be careful deciding on the most relevant approach. The five relevant situations for
research strategies are experiments, survey, archival analyses, history and case study
(Yin, 1994).
Research questions like “who”, “what”, “where”, and “why” also influence the
research strategy to be used. Thus a first thing researcher should do is to formulate the
main research question. The main research question of the paper is formulated as
“what” question. “What is the aspiration for EU-Georgia relations within ENP
process” is a main research question. To reach the purpose of the thesis three subquestions are formulated as “what” questions as well: 1) What are the goals for the
EU regarding the ENP concerning Georgia? 2) What are the main reasons for
EU’s greater interest inviting Georgia in ENP? 3) What are the achievements and
planned actions in the ENP concerning EU/Georgian relation? The answer to these
questions will be the answer to my research problem.
Research strategy of the theses provides possibility to deal with multiple sources of
evidence. This study focuses upon one policy field promoted towards one country
instead of a large number of policy fields. This gives me the time and space to carry
17
out deeper analysis. This policy field, regional cooperation, is also one of the toppriority fields in the EU’s foreign policy.
2.2 Research Design
Every type of empirical research has an implicit, if not explicit, research design. In
the most elementary sense, the design is the logical sequence that connects the
empirical data to a study’s initial research questions and, ultimately, to its conclusions
(Yin, 1994).
The research design helps to answer the research problem in the best possible way
considering certain limitations. It is the choice of the best way of how research shall
be conducted and what kind of information to be collected to answer the research
problem. Research design depends on what problem is investigated.
There are four types of design for case studies described in literature following 2x2
matrixes. The first pair of categories consists of single-case and multiple-case
designs. The second pair, which can occur in combination with either of the first pair,
is based on the unit or units of analyses to be covered – and distinguishes between
holistic and embedded designs (Yin, 1994).
The difference between a single and multiple-case study designs arises from the
number of case studies to be used when trying to solve the research problem. The
decision on the number of cases to use should be made before starting collecting the
evidence. The embedded case study includes more than one unit of analysis and
focuses on one or more sub-units and their outcome within the case study, while the
holistic case study rather aims at examining the global nature of the problem.
Embedded-single-case study design was chosen in this paper to describe the
EU/Georgian relations. All the evidence is going to be tested on one case in order to
get an in-depth understanding of observable facts.
18
2.3 Research approach
All research approaches can be classified into one of the general categories of
research: explanatory, descriptive, and exploratory. When it comes to the exploratory
research design, it is characterized by the flexibility and is more useful when the
problem is poorly understood. The explanatory case studies use the available data to
explain a particular phenomenon. In case of structured and well understood problems,
the descriptive research is appropriate. These categories differ significantly in terms
of research purpose, research questions, the precision of the hypotheses that are
formed, and the data collection methods that are used (Aaker, Kumar, Day, 2004).
An exploratory research is used to explore general nature of a problem and the
possible decision alternatives that need to be considered. This research approach was
used in the beginning of the paper, in order to become more familiar with the subject
– the European Union (EU) and its relation with third countries. The same approach
continued while conducting interviews in order to gather more information.
The main objective of the descriptive approach is to describe the investigated
phenomenon (Kinnear T., Taylor J., 1996). The aim of this approach is to describe an
observed event but without attempting of generalization of the findings into theory.
This approach was used when presenting empirical findings in the paper.
The exploratory approach represents a cause and effect relationship between different
factors. It is used when describing relationships that can be identified by existing
theories. Exploratory approach is used in the analytical part of the paper where the
empirical data is tested according to the theories developed in theoretical chapters.
2.4 Scientific reasoning
19
A particular problem can be approached from either theoretical or empirical level. In
this respect there are three ways of reasoning when examining a particular problem:
the deductive, inductive, and abductive. The deductive research is based on existing
theory and knowledge. The researcher uses only data that explains the theoretical
propositions. Contrary, the inductive approach begins from the empirical level by
gathering empirical data first, to produce conclusions and develop theories thereafter.
This method is usually used when there is a lack of theoretical evidence or when the
existing theories do not explain a certain event. The combination of these two
approaches derives from what is known as an abductive approach. This method is
advantageous when the researcher wants to clarify two operations: the selection and
the formation of reasonable theory (Merriam, 1998). As process of finding premises,
it is the basis of interpretive reconstruction of causes and intentions, as well as of
inventive construction of theories.
In this paper deductive research design is used in order to determine the area of the
study to focus on. All the data was gathered in order to explain the existing theories
and drawn conclusions are based on them.
2.5 Qualitative research
Qualitative data collection is done to obtain a basic feel for the problem before
proceeding to the more analytical portion of the study (Aaker, Kumar, Day, 2004).
Qualitative data are collected to know more about things that can not be directly
observed and measured. Explanations of social activities involve understanding and
interpreting actions. It includes searching for meaning, motives and reasons.
Qualitative methods role is to identify and make the society’s character
understandable (Marsh & Stoker 2002).
Qualitative method is used for this study due to the thesis’s purpose and the question
formulated in this study. My aim is to take a look into a policy field, ENP within the
20
EU and to answer empirical questions on why and how the Union is promoting this
policy.
The techniques that can be used in a qualitative method are observations, interviews
and text analysis (Aaker, Kumar, Day, 2004). I have chosen text analysis along with
interviews. This study is examining the EU/Georgia relationship which has no lack of
material for analysis and keeps good records of their activities. But I chose to use text
analysis together with interviews in order to have the specific answers on questions.
.
2.6 Data collection
The data collected for the research purpose can be primary or secondary. Secondary
data are already available, because they were collected for some purpose other then
solving the present problem. It may include information from different databases,
articles, books and internet sources. Primary data are collected especially to address a
specific research objective. A variety of methods, ranging from qualitative research to
surveys to experiments, may be employed (Aaker, Kumar, Day, 2004). According to
Yin there are six sources of primary data: documentation, archival records,
interviews, direct observations, participant observation, and physical artifact. Both
primary and secondary data sources were used in order to increase the validity of this
paper.
2.6.1 Primary data
Primary sources such as government publications, internet, books, reports, journals;
different articles along with previous studies were used in this paper. A vast amount
of literature on existing theories addressing problems discussed in the current work
has been analyzed in order to reveal the most appropriate ones. Furthermore primary
data gave a general insight to the EU/Georgian relations. It helped to understand the
21
main issues regarding the research questions and provided a good background to the
main issues.
2.6.2 Secondary data
Secondary data was implemented by the means of personal interviews (Appendix 13)
and personal observations.
2.7 Triangulation
Triangulation is a method used by researchers to check and establish validity in their
studies. It can be defined as a process of combining findings from different sources in
order to increase the accuracy level of the study. There are several types of
triangulation described in literature:
•
Data triangulation, involving time, space, and persons;
•
Investigator triangulation, which consist of the use of multiple, rather than
single observers;
•
Theory triangulation, which consists of using more than one theoretical
scheme in the interpretation of the phenomenon;
•
Methodological triangulation, which involves using more than one method
and may consist of within-method or between-method strategies;
•
Environmental triangulation which involves the use of different locations,
settings and other key factors related to the environment in which the study
took place;
•
Multiple triangulations when the researcher combines in one investigation
multiple
observers,
theoretical
perspectives,
sources
of
data,
and
methodologies.
For the sake of increasing accuracy of the findings presented in a paper data
triangulation was applied. Different sources of data, primary as well as secondary,
22
ware combined to ensure some degree of accuracy. In cases of diverse information
provided by different sources data verification has been performed.
2.8 Evaluation of research results
Because a research design is supposed to interpret a logical set of statements, the
quality of any given design can be judged according to certain logical tests. There are
four tests summarized in literature: construct validity, internal validity, external
validity and reliability (Yin, 1994). Validity in research has to do with description
and explanation, whether or not the explanation fits decision. In addition, researchers
do not claim that there is only one way of interpreting an event. There is no one
“correct” interpretation (Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2000).
The construct validity concerns with the specifications that comprise applicability of
theoretical approach throughout the research. A well constructed study must have
theoretical background with clear operational definitions involving considerable
indicators. A construct is a way of defining something. The construct validity of the
research is higher if the construct is used by researchers in more settings with
outcomes consistent with the theory.
The internal validity of the experiment depends on the extent to which competing
explanations for the results are avoided (Aaker, Kumar, Day, 2004). According to
Merriam there are six ways of increasing internal validity of the study. The first
method is using triangulation (using different sources for data verification). The
second method is a member-check. The people who were the original source of
information are familiarized with the data and interpretations included in the study.
The third method is the long term observations. The results are closer to reality if the
data was obtained over a longer time span. Another way of increasing internal
validity is asking fellow researchers to give opinion on the results of a study. The fifth
method involves all the research participants to be as a part of in the process of the
23
research from beginning to end. And finally, investigator can provide assumptions
used as the background of the study.
Further, it has to be mentioned that internal validity is concern only for causal
explanatory studies, where an investigator is trying to determine effect of some
specific event on another (Yin, 1994).
As already mentioned, data triangulation is used to increase the internal validity of
this paper. To improve the quality of collected information latest materials were
looked up and respondents for the interviews were carefully selected by there
expertise in specific matters. Some additional questions were sent to the respondents
where particular issues and their interpretation were doubted.
The external validity is the extent to which the result of the study can be applied to
circumstances outside specific research setting in which a particular study was carried
out. It establishes the domain to which a study's findings can be generalized
However, the extent for further generalization in this thesis is limited by the fact that
some realities described in this thesis have some geographical and cultural specificity.
The reliability of a measure is the extent to which it provides consistent information
every time it is used. It implies that if another researcher is doing the same case all
over again following exactly the same procedures as described by an earlier
researcher the latter should arrive at the same findings and conclusions. This idea is
based on the assumption that there is only one reality.
As already mentioned, several techniques were applied in this paper to avoid any
possible errors. To increase the reliability of the presented data some efforts were put
in obtaining trustworthy sources of information. To facilitate the consistency of the
primary data, it was collected from different sources. For this purpose the information
were obtained from various institutions and compared for any inconsistencies with
24
the latest agreements. Moreover, to conduct the interviews, competent respondents
have been chosen in order to get secondary opinion about the subject. Questions have
been chosen carefully according to the subject for the interviews. Thus, it is believed
that efforts mentioned above will increase the reliability of this paper and lower
possibility of significant errors.
2.9 Material
In order to collect answers to the questions agreements and reports regarding the
policy field ENP will be analyzed. Reports from the Commission, statements made by
the European Council, regulation decided by the Council and by the Parliament will
be used for the research. Also, interviews from the policy makers will have a priority
through the thesis.
The heads of governments from the member states agree upon the agenda and the
Commission is given the task to produce reports and propositions. This material is
decided and legalized in the Council, sometimes accompanied with the Parliament.
After this, it is up to the Commission to implement the policy. This “wheel” of
initiating and deciding does not stop here, it keeps spinning. The Commission reports
the status of action taken and the Council or the European Council takes further
actions. This communication is the base of material for the research. Also websites
for information about the ENP have been searched.
Latest EU publications, research papers and articles relevant to the ENP have been
used in empirical analyses.
25
III Theoretical Background
This section intends to present the theoretical approach for this study. It represents
the analytical part providing different theories composing conceptual frame of the
thesis. First of all the theories needed to describe Regional Security Complex theory,
New Regionalism theory and International Negotiations theory are introduced and
explained in context of study approach.
3.1 Theoretical Framework
The recent development in EU-Georgia bilateral relations has been the establishment
of an ENP Action Plan (ENPAP)5. The ENPAP aims at bringing an increasingly close
bilateral relationship between EU and Georgia. By agreeing an ENP Action Plan,
Georgia and the EU have committed themselves to develop deeper economic
integration and to strengthen bilateral political cooperation, including foreign and
security policies. Country Strategy Paper (CSP) is European Neighborhood and
Partnership instrument covering main objectives of EU cooperation with Georgia for
the period of 2007-2013 (Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013; Georgia).
Key elements signified as theoretical structure for the thesis is based on following
factors:
Country Strategy Paper for Georgia represents ENP instrument for EU Georgia
relations. One of the top priorities of the strategic objectives identified by CSP of EU
cooperation with Georgia is Security Challenges (military, political, economic, social
and environmental). EU’s approach toward Georgia is shaped by both, Regional
(Georgia was included in ENP together with two South Caucasus countries, Armenia
and Azerbaijan) as well as Country-specific (Country Action Plan) cooperation
5
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=156&lang_id=ENG
26
objectives. A relation between EU and Georgia, which has been developed slowly,
negotiation, was a strategic element through these years.
As a theoretical framework, Regional Security Complex Theory is chosen in order
to provide a general analyses that reveals the complete background causing
regional security arrangements. Since the centre of attention in the thesis is on
security, the analytical framework stems from security theories, specifically the New
Regionalism Theory which is preferred in order to evaluate the ENP process
according Georgia. While EU-Georgian relation under the ENP is shaped by regional
as well as country specific approach, International Negotiation Theory was selected
to supply the analyses. Thus, security and regional partnership will be used as
analytical tools and security complex as the framework of analysis
Using Regional Security Complex Theory in this study was initiated by several
factors. First of all, the foundation of ENP is European Common Foreign and
Security Policy. This means that security problems are at the top of the list from EU
position. And the second factor derives from the fact that security stands at the top of
Georgia’s national priorities. So this theory should guide us through the analytical
part to explore the main questions in this paper. The Regional Security Complex
Theory clarifies comprehensive security concept based on the idea of geographic
proximity of regional security binding the whole Neighborhood together. The
security complex theory enables to understand increasing number of regional
patterns and provides a framework for studying particular regions. It allows for
explanations of security interdependence between the EU and Georgia that initially
belongs to South Caucasus regional cluster. The general picture includes interplay
between general factors and security of states which form the regional dynamics. This
theory offers a structure to grasp these dynamics.
The New Regionalism Theory makes emphases on the factors that explain the
regional cooperation within the European Neighborhood. The ENP is a regionallevel process of building mechanisms and institutions to settle the local aspects
27
of global trends and problems (Attina, 2003). This paradigm stresses economic and
political interdependence, security vulnerabilities and geopolitics. These factors can
be used to understand the interdependence between Europe and Georgia to
further their security cooperation through ENP. New Regionalism theory was the
interconnection between regionalism and security.
Using New Regionalism Theory was preferred because, unlike the old one, the new
regionalism provides a viewpoint on the possibility of cooperation in a heterogeneous
region like South Caucasus region, part of which is Georgia. New Regionalism differs
from the old regionalism in certain aspects: while old regionalism was specific with
regard to
objectives, being security-oriented or being
economically-oriented
whereas new regionalism is a more comprehensive, multidimensional process
including trade and economic integration, environment, social policy, security,
democracy which means inclusion of whole issue of accountability and
legitimacy. (Hettne, 1999)
New regionalism, in contrast, with old Regionalism
studies non-homogenous regions and explains the possibility of regional cooperation
in those areas. It underlines the perception of problem-sharing and intensification
of dialogue between governments in the formation of regional cooperation.
(Attina, 2002, 2003)
International Negotiation Theory is relevant to our discussion as it is main tool
between states to reach their goals. EU-Georgian cooperation and ENP strategic
objectives was reached by negotiation process where interested parties attempted to
reach the outcomes which serve their mutual interests even with some significant
differences. Negotiation theory identifies the idea behind ENP, engagement of
Georgia with European Union and vice versa. This theory should help in analyzing
level of interests between EU and Georgia trough ENP. It was a long process on
negotiating ENP Action Plan for Georgia as well as for EU. In this agreement
Georgia and EU were both trying to focus on their best interests.
28
3.2 Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT)
Regional security complex can be defined as: a cluster of nation states within which
“security interdependence is relatively more intense inside it than across its
boundaries.” (Buzan & Wæver; 2003)
The original definition of this theoretical framework was formed in 1983, which
stated that a security complex was: “a group of states whose primary security
concerns link together sufficiently closely that their national securities cannot
reasonably be considered apart
from one another”
(Buzan 1998). In 1998 a
reformulation was called for stating that a RSCT constituted: “a set of units
whose major processes of securitization, are so interlinked that their security
problems cannot reasonably be analyzed or resolved apart from one another”
(Weaver & Buzan 1998). The central idea of these definitions is that
securitization in the international system will manifest itself in regional clusters
(Weaver & Buzan 2003).
The analytical framework which we attend to use in this perspective is called
Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), developed by Ole Wæver and Barry
Buzan6.
There are three principal theoretical perspectives on post-Cold War international
security structures : neorealism, globalism and regionalism (Buzan & Wæver
2003). It is not in the nature of this thesis to discuss the first two perspectives; only
regionalism perception will be discussed further.
Importance to locate the regional (security) level, is due to the circumstance that
a state is primary interrelated with its neighbors regarding security matters.
6
Buzan, Barry & Wæver, 2003, Ole, Regions and Powers – The Structure of International Security,
Cambridge Studies in International Relations
29
Neighbors are simply more likely to have security threats from each other than from
distant states, one of the reasons could be simply spillover effect. (Buzan & Wæver
2003) Therefore the regional perspective is also the primary perspective.
The dynamics inside a regional security complex is not much different from
those at
the global level. There are patterns of rivalry, balance-of-power, and
alliance patterns among the main powers. These dynamics are formed by general
patterns of amity and enmity, which most often is generated by a mixture of
historic, political, and material conditions (Buzan & Wæver 2003). This, however,
should not lead to the misunderstanding that a regional security complex can be
understood through historical, political, or material perspectives (Buzan & Wæver
2003).
Security complexes are related to the intensity of interstate relations that lead
distinctive regional patterns. Regional complex is defined as a set of states whose
major security perceptions and concerns are so interlinked that their national security
problems cannot reasonably be analyzed or resolved apart from one another (Buzan;
1998). Main characteristics of security regions are: there should be at least two states
as constituent; these states constituted a geographically coherent grouping; security
interdependence shapes the interaction between these states; and finally, the pattern
of security interdependence is to be deep and long-lasting. (Buzan; 1998).
According to the theory, any public issue can be located on the spectrum ranging
from non politicized, through politicized, to securitized. Meaning for securitized issue
is presented as an existential threat requiring emergency measures and justifying
actions outside the bounds of political procedure (Buzan; 1998). Securitization is a
process with no objective measure of security, meaning that different states perceive
threat in different ways. Therefore, the extent of shared security concept
understanding is a key to grasp the interplay among actors. In security partnership all
regional states as well as external powers should be involved to accomplish stability
and security in the region.
30
According to the theory geographical estimate is important in the formation of
security complex system. By using complex system, this study aims to show that
security is a particular type of politics applicable to a wide range of issues and
sectors, actually creating the structure: military, political, economic, environmental
and societal and should not be regarded as independent aspects.
The military sector is about relationships of forceful coercion.
The political sector is about relationships of authority, governing status and
recognition.
The economic sector is about relationships of trade, production and finance.
The societal sector is about relationships of collective identity.
The environmental sector is about relationships between human activity and
the planetary biosphere.
To analyze security complex system it is important to show how sectors are
synthesized. In other words, the majority of states have traditionally been concerned
with the capabilities and plans of their neighbours (Buzan and Wæver 2003). As it
relates more specifically to the EU and security, European Union is keen upon
encouraging regional cooperation. (Wæver 1995; Buzan and Wæver 2003).
For the purposes of this discussion New Regionalism Theory concerning regional
cooperation will be exploited. This should enable us to understand how regional
cooperation remains as the primary method to secure the region.
3.3 New Regionalism
New Regionalism is a comprehensive, multidimensional process including trade
and economic integration, environment, social policy, security, democracy which
means inclusion of whole issue of accountability and legitimacy (Buzan and
Wæver 2003).
31
Appling New Regionalism, for this research was caused by several reasons. New
Regionalism explains connection between regional cooperation and security. It
underlines the perception of problem-sharing and intensification of dialogue
between governments in the formation of regional cooperation. (Attina, 2002,
2003) The new global system is characterized by the flow of information,
communication, cross-border problems such as migration, terrorism, drug trafficking,
organized crimes and illegal trade. It is not only the military but also the non-military
issues threaten the security and stability of a country. Thus, nation-states become
insufficient to prevent the threats unilaterally. Therefore, states preferred to
participate in collective security and cooperation framework and establish transnational policy coordination so that costs of action will be shared. New regionalism
stresses that regional cooperation can be started by governments which assume that
negotiations for building good-neighbor relationships, economic ties, knowledge
transfer and policy coordination, are the most preferable tool to cope with the
problems broadly caused to the countries of the region by some new global trends.
(Attina, 2003: 183).
In summary, new regionalism goes beyond the rational evaluation and broadens the
perspective by seeing the whole picture with all its dimensions. ENP is a
multidimensional process of regional cooperation; it is a package rather than a single
policy and goes beyond the free trade market idea (Hettne, 1999:17).
Multidimensionality of ENP offers an explanation of regional cooperation in South
Caucasus.
3.4 International Negotiation Theory
International Negotiation theory is also an aspect of the theoretical framework that
will govern this discussion. One of the main factors to be considered as it relates to
international negotiations theory is the complexity of negotiations on an international
32
scale (Midgaard and Underdal 1977; Elgström and Jönsson 2005 ). Negotiation
process consists of communication, among states seeking to arrive at mutually
acceptable outcome on some issue or issues of shared concern. Complexity of
negotiation streams from diplomatic activity between states and has to be
distinguished, on the one hand, from the simple exchange of views and on the other
hand, from the practice of conceive diplomacy by which one party attempts to impose
its wishes unilaterally( Raymond Cohen,1995).
The theoretical framework associated with international negotiations theory is
essential to understanding the role of the EU and ultimately the ENP. As it relates to
the goals of the EU through the implementation of ENP, it is clear that negotiations
can be complex and that they play an instrumental role of achieving the goal with
Georgia and vice versa.
Negotiation is a process by which we search for terms to obtain what we want from
somebody who wants something from us (Kennedy Gavin, 2006). ENP negotiation
phase for EU and Georgia was a process to further their interests. It is important to
assess the relative importance of those interests and proportions in the ENP
negotiation process.
In the negotiation process each party want to do well for themselves. “Doing well” is
only measured with respect to the things they care about, weather out of direct self
interest or concern for the welfare of others. Thus doing better in negotiations does
not imply pressing for a bigger share rather it means advancing the totality of ones
interests (K. Gavin 2006).
It is not always easy to know how to evaluate interests when it comes to the state
negotiation process. They may derive from interactions too complex to understand
directly. In such cases, carefully chosen proxy interests may help. For example it is
not possible to predict the effect of any particular negotiated outcome on all
substantive interests over the course of term. Clarifying interests, however, can
sometimes be difficult (R. Cohen 1995).
33
3.4.1 “Relationship” Interests
Several types of interests (Lax and Sebenius, 1986) may be at stake in a negotiation.
It can provide a way to capture some important qualities of interests and lead to
improved agreements.
“Process” Interests - Are related to the way an agreement is settled. Analysts often
assume that negotiators evaluate agreements by measuring the value obtained from
the outcome. Yet, negotiators may care about the process of bargaining as well. Even
with no prospect of further interaction, some would prefer a negotiated outcome
reached by pleasant, cooperative discussion to the same outcome reached by abusive,
dealings (Ficher and Ury 1981).
“Relationship” Interests - These interests indicate that one or both parties value their
relationship with each other and do not want to take actions that will damage it.
“Relationship” Interests exist when the parties value the relationship both for its
existence and for the fulfillment of substantive benefits from the relationship.
Negotiation process often stresses the value of the relationship interests, those
interests sometimes derive from developing an effective working relationship (Ficher
and Ury 1981). Interests should be distinguished from issues and positions. For
analyzing EU-Georgia relationship process, issues and positions under ENP, it will be
helpful to focus on “Relationship” Interests that assist to develop a better
understanding of mutual problems and inventing solutions.
Interest in “Principles” - Negotiating parties may have interests in principle. Certain
principles - concerning what is fair, what is right, what is acceptable, what is ethical,
or what has been done in the past and should be done in the future - may be deeply
held by the parties and serves as the dominant guide to their action (Ficher and Ury
1981).
34
IV Empirical Studies
This part of the paper discloses the information about the current conditions
prevailing in EU and Georgia regarding politics, economic situation and legal
regulations which affect relations.
4.1 European Union: as a power in International Relations
In the recent years the development of the EU’s foreign policy has been a focal point
for IR researchers. Theories on the EU were to a great extent built upon the
integration process and had been more or less ignored earlier by IR theorizers
(Rosamund, B. 2000). Development of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
has strengthened EU’s role on international arena (Smith, H. 2001).
4.2 Legal foundation for the European Unions Foreign Policy
The end of the cold war, Germany’s reunion and the war in former Yugoslavia led to
new threats and needs. The Unions member states decided it necessary to establish
the second pillar of the European Union in the 1993 Treaty on European Union
signed at Maastricht.(“Europe in the world…2006”).
4.2.1 Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
This was the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)7 the function of the
second pillar (Appendix 4).
7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy
35
In addition there were many changes made in 1999 enforcement of the Amsterdam
Treaty and there have been additional developments in CFSP. It led to the
establishment of a common European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)8 in1999.
4.2.2 European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)
The European Union has agreed to develop a Common Security and Defence Policy
(CESDP) that fits within the overall framework of the CFSP and the development of
this policy has been ongoing. In December of 2001 the European Council at Laeken
implemented a declaration on the operational capacity of the ESDP (“Common
Foreign and Security Policy”). In addition, the provisional structures developed in
the aftermath of the Amsterdam treaty are now permanent (“Common Foreign and
Security Policy”)9.
Indeed the Amsterdam treaty plays a fundamental role in establishing the following
objectives:
Ø To make stronger the security of the Union in every possible way;
Ø To protect the shared values, basic interests, autonomy and integrity of the
European Union in compliance with the principle of the United Nations
Charter;
Ø To defend peace and reinforce international security, in agreement with the
standards established by the United Nations Charter, in addition to the
standard of the Helsinki Final Act and the objectives established in the Paris
Charter (“Common Foreign and Security Policy”);
Ø To enlarge and strengthen democracy and the rule of law, respect for human
rights and basic freedoms (“Common Foreign and Security Policy”);
8
9
Also referred to as CESDP, including “Common” as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Policy
36
Ø To encourage international collaboration (“Common Foreign and Security
Policy”);
The European Council, the heads of state or government in the EU member states,
confirmed their intention that the EU “shall play its full role on the international
stage… give the European Union the necessary means and capabilities to assume its
responsibilities regarding a common European policy on security and defense”
(European Security Strategy 2003; The European Council;). The aim was to create
the capacity for independent action, backed up by credible armed forces and decisionmaking bodies and procedures.
4.2.3 European Security Strategy (ESS), tool for strategic relations
This new policy for security lined the way also for a European Security Strategy
(ESS) in December 2003. The security strategy recognizes the significance of
“security in neighborhood” and the creation of a “ring of responsibly governed
states” around the EU (“The European Security Strategy” The European Council
2003). Enlargement in 2004 changed the European Union geographically. New
neighbors in the East were in vision. In 2004 the EU responded to these internal and
external changes with the launch of a new “European Neighborhood Policy” (ENP).
The ENP promotes the above-mentioned objectives in the CFSP and the ESS towards
third countries in the surrounding area of Europe (“European Neighborhood Policy:
Strategy Paper” 2004).
4.3 The European Neighborhood Policy (ENP)
37
What is the European Neighborhood policy (ENP)? Initially it is a programme in the
EU’s foreign policies, dealing with third countries. As the name imply, the EU has
grouped its neighbor countries into one cluster and is to some extent dealing with
them jointly. The ENP allows neighboring countries to the EU for a deeper
relationship with the Union.
Almost every country comprising the ENP is very much already associated prior to
the establishment of this programme. In Eastern Europe and South Caucasus the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreements10 contribute the foundation for relations.
The EU Mediterranean Partnership, including the Barcelona Process, presents a
regional support for cooperation in the Mediterranean (Common Strategy
2000/458/CFSP; The European Council). The ENP using all these agreements as a
base is trying to simplify and combine the EU’s relations.
Each country has or will have an agenda, a so called Action Plan, for the participation
in the ENP (Appendix 5). All the measures that the partner country and also the EU
have to take are declared here. This will be the tool, by which the ambitions and the
objectives of the ENP will be fulfilled. The Commission and inquisitive negotiating
with the country in point will put these Plans forward (“European Neighborhood
Policy: Strategy Paper” 2004).
ENP Action Plans are already being implemented – with Israel, Jordan, Moldova,
Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia. Lebanon and Egypt are the next countries and for the last 4 countries,
Algeria, Belarus, Libya and Syria, no predictions are made at this date.11
The development of the ENP evolved from the enlargement of the European Union
that took place in 2004 (Appendix 7). This enlargement was viewed as a way to
improve the Economic and social stability on the European Continent. Because
Europe and the European Union in particular are composed of many different nations
10
11
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/ceeca/pca/index.htm
The European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm
38
with diverse cultures, the enlargement of the Union brought with it certain challenges
related to this diversity. To combat these challenges the European Union developed
the Neighbourhood policy to create and implement policies that would encourage all
of the countries to work together towards the accomplishment of mutual goals.
4.4 Regional Cooperation
The Regional Cooperation as a policy matter in the EU takes its origin from the
establishment of the European Communities. The EU has sustained to build relations
from the perspective of its own success, stemming from cooperation. A definition of
the term regional cooperation in the EU context is “all efforts on the part of (usually)
neighboring countries to address issues of common interest” (COM (95) also, Smith,
K.E. 2005) A reason for grouping countries together concerning regions is due to the
fact that they usually are interdependent which includes their weaknesses. Problems
like environmental pollution, drug trafficking and other cross-bordering activities
must be dealt with on a regional basis (Smith, K.E. 2005). Also states domestic issues
such as economy or unemployment usually affect neighboring countries, the
problems could be transmitted. In an interdependent world economic system,
regionalization is seen as an agent of integration and globalization as well as a level
for transformation from guided economic systems to market economies. Regional
partnership also contributes to geopolitical stability. Cooperation can in these areas
benefit from a regional approach and is considered to be one of the most effective
confidence building measures.
The EU definition of Regional Cooperation includes elimination of policy-induced
fences in movement of goods, services, transportation, and factors of production in
the group of cooperating states; harmonization in these areas is a key issue. With this
promotion the Union expects economic development, prosperity and peace among the
cooperating countries (Appendix 6).
39
This support for regional groupings is seen as a way to maintain links between an
enlarged EU and the rest of the countries in Europe. An objective for the ENP is, “to
prevent the emergence of new dividing lines between the enlarged EU and its
neighbors and to offer them the chance to participate in various EU activities”
(Ferrero-Waldner B. 2006).
ENP allows third countries to create an opportunity for better trade facilitation within
the region as well as towards the EU.
4. 5 EU Russian Relationship and Geopolitics of the Energy
Supply
The EU is a major player on the international energy market as it is one of the world's
largest importers of oil, gas and coal. With external dependence on imports forecast
to grow steadily, the EU has started to engage itself into relations with third countries
for energy aspects12.
Oil and gas reserves are unevenly distributed around the globe, and the largest
reserves are situated in politically or economically insecure regions (Middle-East,
Russia). North Sea oil and gas fields have already been exploited beyond their peak,
leaving Europe dependent on non-EU countries for future supply (Piebalgs A. 2007).
4.5.1 Europe’s Troubling Dependence
Russia, the European Union’s primary oil and gas provider, has deliberately taken advantage of this lack of cohesion to gain favorable energy deals and heighten European
dependence on Russian supplies. Russia has practiced a strategy whereby Europe’s
substantial dependence on Russian energy is a power to obtain economic and political
12
http://www.euractiv.com/en/industry/geopolitics-eu-energy-supply/article-142665
40
gains. If this situation continues, the EU will find itself in further danger, as its
dependence leaves it beholden to Russian interests. There simply is no readily
available alternative to the supplies the EU receives from Russia, particularly natural
gas. Unlike oil, gas is extremely difficult and costly to ship via tankers; pipe-lines are
the preferred method of transportation. Thus, if a supplier refuses to provide gas or
charges an unreasonable price, the consumer cannot quickly or easily turn to another
source. The consumer state would have no choice but to accept the supplier’s
conditions or go without natural gas, an option that is all but unacceptable for most.
The unjust manipulation or interruption of energy supplies is as much a security
threat as military action is, especially since the EU relies on Russia for more than 30
percent of its oil imports and 50 percent of its natural gas imports13. Seven eastern
European countries receive at least 90 percent of their crude oil imports from Russia,
and six EU nations are entirely dependent on Russia for their natural gas imports. If
no action is taken, it predicted, the EU's energy dependency will climb from 50% in
2000 to 70% in 203014.
The lack of reliable and sustainable European access to energy represents a clear
threat to the Union’s security. The Commission has adopted new energy policy for
Europewhich states that “energy must become a central part of all external EU
relations” 15.
4.6 Georgia: country overview
13 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/90082.pdf.
14 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/green-paper-energy-supply/doc/contributions/2002-02/2002-02-27-i2.pdf
15
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0001:FIN:EN:HTML
41
Georgia is situated at the junction of Europe and Asia, in the central western part of
Transcaucasia. Caucasus mountain range separates it from Russia from north, to the
south it neighbors Turkey and Armenia, and to the east Azerbaijan. The western
boundaries of Georgia are washed by the Black Sea. The overall territory occupies
69,700 square kilometers. It has a borderline of 1968.8 km, of which 308,4km is
coastal. The population according to various estimates is 5.4 million people, 70.1%
being ethnically Georgian. 15 major ethnic groups constitute almost 30% of
population. The capital of Georgia is Tbilisi with around 1.3 million inhabitants.
There are 9 regions, 65 districts, 5 cities of republic dependence and 2 autonomous
republics.
The state language is Georgian. The Georgian alphabet, one of fourteen in the world
originates form 3ed - 4th centuries AD. Georgia is one of the oldest Christian
countries. Christianity was declared as state religion 337 AD. The majority of the
population is Orthodox Christians.
4.6.1 Political stability
Since the peaceful “Rose Revolution” of November 2003 Georgia has appeared
under the world spotlight, as the new government led by innovative young people took
over Shevardnadze’s regime to replace the years of frustration and dissolution with a
new sense of hope and unity; to build a democracy that could embrace and protect all
members of Georgian nation (M. Saakashvili, president of Georgia).
Georgia was the first among the Soviet Union republics to declare independence in
1991. It was followed by the outbreak of conflicts in autonomous republics of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia within Georgian territory. Economy has collapsed because of
open combats and loss of preferential access to the former Soviet Union markets. The
armed conflicts were stopped as a cease-fire came to effect at the end of 1993.
42
Nevertheless the relation between the central government and self declared republics
remains very tense.
Fraud of parliamentary elections of November 2003 caused public protests which led
to resignation of the president E. Shevardnadze. Presidential elections held in January
4th 2004 were won by the leader of mass protests, former member of the cabinet of
ministers M. Saakashvili by overwhelming majority of votes 96.27%. Constitutional
amendments where run through parliament to strengthen the power of president. The
post of Prime Minister was formed.
Political power in Georgia is based on classical democratic model with presidential
power. The Constitution of 1995 defines the principles of rule of law. Parliament of
Georgia represents the legislative power consisting of 235 MPs (subject to change)
and is assembled on the basis of general elections. Georgian Constitution provides the
independence of judiciary. Supreme Court is the supreme judicial body. Articles of
Constitution are protected by Constitutional Court.
Political security made it possible to implement economic stabilization program
which is being successfully observed at present. Critical measures were taken to
tackle the corruption and organized crime.
The foreign policy is directed towards developing co-operation with other countries
and integration into different international structures.
4.6.2 Economic situation
Georgia had relatively strong economy before the collapse of Soviet Union. The
dissolution of the Soviet Union had a dramatic impact on Georgian economy,
reflecting in reduction of personal incomes, hyperinflation of national currency,
increased levels of unemployment, and reduction of output of agricultural and
industrial products. In 1992 the GDP dropped by 44.2% compared to 1989.
43
In 1994 with assistance of WB and IMF Georgia launched Anti-Crisis program under
which the implementation of large-scale economic reforms began. The reforms
encompassed entire range of economy: restructuring banking system and monetary
policy, acceleration of privatization, liberalization of prices, transformation of fiscal
system and liberalization of foreign trade, improving of revenue system and
appropriate legal framework and many more.
National currency was introduced in September 1995. As a result inflation was
reduced to 13.8% in 1996 and to only 7.3% in 1997. Lower annual average inflation
of 5-6% is explained by the government’s prudent monetary policy. The National
Bank of Georgia continues the floating exchange rate policy in order to ensure
currency stability.
The systematic institutional reforms, creation of liberal legislative framework and
structural changes in economy has led to constant economic growth since 1995. The
chart illustrates the GDP growth rates from 2000 to 2006.
GDP growth rates 2000-2006
Source: Department for Statistics of the Ministry of Economic Development of
Georgia
44
As in most of former communist countries the shadow economy and non recorded
operations remain the major obstruction to the Georgian economy. However,
implementation of successful anti-corruption policies has resulted in a clear tendency
towards legalization of informal economy.
Due to the size and the openness of Georgian economy, foreign trade plays very
important role for stability and economic development of the country. After gaining
independence Georgia enhanced foreign relations with more then 100 countries.
Import is dominated by mineral products (especially natural gas, oil and oil products)
and electricity, indicating country’s complete reliance on foreign energy resources.
Other major import products are pharmaceuticals and food.
Georgia’s international trade and exchange is one of the most liberal among
transitional economies. The IMF’s trade restrictiveness index for Georgia is only 2 on
a scale of 1 to 10 (see the article “Invest in Georgia 2007”).
According to the data of State Department of Statistics of Georgia16 the major trade
partners in 2003 were Russia, UK, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Those countries
represent 53% of the overall registered trade. The same year imports from CIS and
EU amounted to 70% of total imports. The major export market for Georgian
products still remains CIS. Turkey contributed to 18% of exports and share of the EU
was about 17%.
Political stability, recent economic reforms and favorable geographic locations
attracts great deal of interest from foreign investors. The improvement of the
investment climate has increased FDI inflows to Georgia, especially after the “Rose
revolution”. Foreign direct investments made in Georgia in 2006 amounted to $1.147
billion USD. As shown on the following chart the amount of foreign direct
investments has increased significantly compared to the previous years.
16
http://www.statistics.ge/index.php?plang=1
45
Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) 2000-2006
Source: Department for Statistics of the Ministry of Economic Development of
Georgia
The World Bank recognized Georgia as the world's fastest-reforming economy in its
2007 “Doing Business” report, ranking it as the world's 37th easiest place to do
business17.
4.6.3 Membership of Different Organizations
In early 90’s Georgia started to prepare to become a member of GATT and then of
the WTO (after its establishment in 1995) membership of which enjoys since 2000.
This membership indicates that Georgian legislation is in full compliance with
international norms and the trade is liberal and country welcomes the foreign
investments. Acceptance by WTO encouraged Georgia’s integration with Europe. In
terms of market access arrangements, Georgia as the member of WTO is subject to
Most Favored Nation (MFN) treatment. Besides, Generalized System of Preferences
17
World Bank Report: “Corruption Eased in Transition Countries from 2002-2005” July 26, 2006
http://web.worldbank.org
46
(GSP) status is granted to Georgia by the EU, USA, Canada, Japan, Switzerland and
Turkey18.
Since June 25, 1992 Georgia is one of the founders of the Organization of the Black
Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) and accordingly participant of the main processes
taking place within the Organization. Georgia greatly contributed to the formation of
the BSEC process and its transformation into the International Regional Economic
Organization (IREO). The main goals and objectives of BSEC are economic
development and stability of the Region, welfare of the people of the Member States
and the promotion of democratic processes in the Black Sea area19.
Georgia joined the CIS in 1993 and is a founding member of GUAM, since May 1996
regional organization consisting of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. The
major objectives of the organization are Democracy and Economic Development20.
In 1999 Georgia has become a member of the European Council, which was a very
important step towards integration in European institutions21.
On November 21st 2002, at the Prague Summit Georgia officially announced its
desire for NATO membership, what automatically draw Georgia into IPAP
(Individual Partnership Action Plan) process. The IPAP is approved and intensified
dialog between NATO and Georgia has been started. If membership of the EU is
viewed as a long term priority, target date for NATO membership is 200822.
4.6.4 Georgia - Russian Relationship
Georgia’s European strategic choice is primarily based on the “fear of Russia”
paradigm (Rondeli A. 2001). This is a security-driven motivation. Over the past two
18
http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=150
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=471&info_id=4696
20
http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=128
21
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=492
22
http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=88
19
47
centuries Russian Empire and the Soviet Union have contributed much to laying
foundation of current ethnic tensions in Georgia through deportations and
resettlement of different ethnic groups, as well as artificially drawing and redrawing
administrative boundaries.
Since the breakup of the USSR, Russia has shown little willingness to witness the
emergence of Georgia as a sovereign state capable of making free choices, ensuring
its political stability and security. Indeed, Russia has actively, manipulated Georgia’s
domestic vulnerabilities in an effort to retain the republic within its sphere of
influence. Russia has acted in most cases as an initiator of, a participant in, and at the
same time as official mediator in these conflicts, openly favoring the secessionist
side. In sum, Russia has become the problem, not the solution, in most of these cases
(Socor V. 2005).
Further, continued crisis in Chechnya has made Georgia a target for international
terrorists. This has served as a cause for repeated violation of Georgia’s air space, by
Russian military forces, including bombing cases.
Additionally, Russia has used various forms of blockade to reinforce coercion:
Closing Russia's market to Georgia's agricultural products;
Imposing “radical” price hikes on gas and electricity supplies to Georgia;
Denying residence permits to Georgia's citizens for work or business in
Russia;
Russia’s aggressive attitude towards Georgia, therefore, has played a decisive role in
determining Georgia’s strategic choice-seeking security guarantees in its western
partners23.
23
Personal Interview with Alexsander Maisuradze
48
4.7 South Caucasus Region
The Caucasus mountain range gave the name to the Region of South Caucasus, which
stretches for more than 800 kilometres from the Caspian to the Black Sea (Seely, R.
2001). This place has always been a bridge between west and east, where Europe
meets with Asia and where cultures have crossed (Henze 1983 cited in Seely 2001).
The nation-states that the South Caucasus is comprised of today are the post-Soviet
states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Three territories in the region:
Abkhazia24, South Osetia25, and Nagorno-Karabakh26 have de facto independence but
are not officially recognized as sovereign states by the international community.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia share a compact geographic area, many common
cultural practices, and a long, interlinked history. Despite these deep ties, crossborder relations and collaborative efforts on a regional scale have diminished
significantly since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Regarding for energy infrastructure from the Caspian Sea region, South Caucasus
literally represents a strategic crossroad for the global market. Georgia is well placed
to serve as one of the world’s major corridors for the shipment of oil and gas from
Caspian Sea27.
The three countries are also tied into a web of commercial and diplomatic interests
that complicate the role of European Union in the region when dealing with all three.
Armenia has close relations with Russia and depends on Russia for much of its
energy. Armenia also has a tense relationship with its neighbors Turkey and
especially Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan for its part remains closer to Turkey and retains
24
Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic located in the South Caucasus, officially part of the
Republic of Georgia.
25
South Ossetia (or Samachablo) is a de facto independent republic located in the South Caucasus,
officially part of the Republic of Georgia
26
Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent republic located in the South Caucasus, officially part
of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
27
Personal Interview with Archil Gegeshidze
49
good relations with Russia. Georgia on the other hand has a tense relationship with
Russia and is the most western-oriented of the three, preferring closer relations with
European Union and NATO28. All three countries maintain good relations with
neighboring Iran. As European Union builds its relationship with the region and each
country individually, it is important to take into account the common interests of the
regional actors.
4.7.1 Similarities within the South Caucasus
A common authoritarian past and a common Soviet legacy granted all three South
Caucasus States with common challenges and opportunities.
The crucial challenge for South Caucasus countries is the problem of territorial
integration. Frozen conflicts in Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh) and in Georgia
(Abkhazia and South Ossetia) do not contribute to the regional stability. These zones
of tension in each country represent the great risk for the overall development process
in the region.
4.7.2 Differences within the South Caucasus
The differences can be found in the manner of political governance, the features of
civil society and the foreign policy orientations. Each country of the South Caucasus
has
different
assets
(political,
economic,
cultural,
societal,
natural
etc.).
4.8 Regional Cooperation within South Caucasus
4.8.1 Energy
28
Personal Interview with Alexander Maisuradze
50
Regardless of differences within South Caucasus there is a tight cooperation within
the region, due to the vast projects such as energy matters which is essential not just
on regional but on international level as well29. New pipeline which was opened in
2005 runs through Georgia from the offshore oil fields of Azerbaijan in the Caspian
Sea to the southern shores of Turkey on the Mediterranean. Starting near Baku in
Azerbaijan, running close to Tbilisi in Georgia, and finishing south of Ceyhan in
Turkey, it is known as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline30. Baku-Supsa oil
pipeline is another important collaboration between Georgia and Azerbaijan. Beside
oil pipelines there is also new independent gas pipeline from the Caspian basin to
Western markets transiting Georgia, Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (South Caucasus). Batumi
(Georgia) is a key terminal for gas exports for partners like Turkey and South Eastern
European countries. Currently there is also an investigation on the feasibility of
bringing Azeri gas from Shah Deniz (Azerbaijan) to the EU (either through Ukraine
and Poland or through Romania) via Georgia31.
Electricity transmission is another important project on regional cooperation. In 2007,
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed the “Tbilisi Declaration on a
Common Vision for Regional Cooperation”32, by which they agreed to support the
construction of a new electricity transmission line from the Republic of Azerbaijan
through the territory of Georgia to the Republic of Turkey, as well as other projects
designed to enhance electricity exchange between the parties in future. The stated aim
of the declaration is that, through developing major regional energy projects the three
states can establish long term and predictable relations33.
4.8.2 Transportation
29
Personal Interview with David Dondua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTC_Pipeline
31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline
32
http://www.un.int/azerbaijan/61%20Session%20Letters/17.pdf
33
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=14589
30
51
“The New Silk Road” project, run by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, is another
strengthening point in a sense of regional cooperation within South Caucasus
revealing numerous political, economic and environmental challenges that is a part of
the package of markets and capital integration.
Framework of the project aims to link Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia via a 258kilometer-long railway. The railroad, 14 years in the making, has been touted as the
shortest route for commercial traffic between Asia and Europe. The railroad will
create conditions for the restoration of the historical “Silk Road” and will develop the
Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor, thereby advancing the region’s integration
with Europe.
This corridor proves particular significance for the Caspian Sea region’s oil industry,
also known as TRASECA project, a regional transportation program backed by the
European Union34.
4.9 EU-Georgia Relation under Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement
The EU-Georgia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA)35 was an important
component in the establishment of EU-Georgia Relations (Appendix 8). The EUGeorgia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was developed in 1996, and
implemented in 1999. The PCA establishes the legal basis of EU-Georgia relations
(Country Report, Georgia). The EU-Georgia partnership is based on:
respect for democracy
values of international law,
34
http://www.traceca-org.org/
35
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ceeca/pca/pca_georgia.pdf
52
principles of a market economy
human rights
The PCA is responsible for broad cooperation in the spheres of investment, trade,
economics, political discussion, legislation and culture (Country Report, Georgia).
This dialogue is based on the mutual pledge to support international peace and
security and the non-violent settlement of disputes.
The PCA has also been
responsible for removing trade quotas and is committed to safeguarding industrial,
intellectual and commercial property rights (Country Report, Georgia). In addition
EU and Georgia have given one another Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment and
Georgia profits from the EU’s General System of Preferences (GSP) (Country Report,
Georgia).
Many joint institutions established as the result of the PCA have operated in a smooth
manner and have served as the platforms for political discussion. These institutions
include the Cooperation Committee, Sub-Committee on Trade, Cooperation Council,
Economic and Related Legal Affairs and the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee
(Country Report, Georgia).
4.10 EU-Georgia ENP development process
During the General Affairs Council in February 2001, the EU established its
readiness to play a more vigorous political position in the South Caucasus region
(Appendix 9). The EU also shared its desire to assess ways to support efforts to
prevent and resolve conflicts in the region and to partake in post-conflict
rehabilitation (Country Report, Georgia). In addition Georgia embraced the EU’s
pledge to play a more dynamic role in the region.
The commission reports that during 2001 and 2002 relations between the EU and
Georgia were negatively affected by several security incidents and slow down EU
53
Georgia relations.36 The decline in Georgian security led the European Commission
to evaluate its policy towards Georgia which resulted in of a revised Country Strategy
Paper in September of 2003 (Country Report, Georgia).
In June 2004 Georgia was offered to be included in the European Neighbourhood
Policy which was a considerable step forward in dealings between the EU and
Georgia (Country Report, Georgia). In addition, Georgia has embraced its inclusion
and articulated its eagerness to take advantage of the opportunities that are now
available because of this inclusion.
In addition in July 2004, the Georgian
government implemented a declaration establishing a “Commission for Georgia’s
integration into the EU” (Country Report, Georgia).
Overall, the relationship between the EU and Georgia already begun to move forward
after identifying major points of concern in Georgia. Time will reveal the magnitude
of the relationship and the impact of ENP on Georgia37. However, it is evident that
Georgia could gain greatly from the benefits offered to the nation through the
Neighbourhood policy and the Action Plan. The next chapter will focus on an in
depth analysis of EU/Georgia relations.
36
These security incidences began in December of 2001 when Guenther, a staff member of the EC
Delegation in Georgia, was killed. Another security incident occurred in June 2002, when a TACIS
contractor, Peter Shaw, was taken captive and detained for five months. The individuals that carried
out these crimes have never been found and or held accountable by the Georgian authorities (Country
Report, Georgia).
37
Personal interview with Robert Lidell
54
V Analyses
5.1 EU-Georgia Interests and ENP Negotiation process
One of the main reasons focusing on the International Negotiation Theory for this
study is for the light it sheds on the aspects of negotiation: interests in “relationship”
between Georgia and EU.
The European Union represents the model of relation among nations governed by
traditional view of the European Institutions. EU is carrying out global mission,
which aims to develop closer relations with third countries. But it is impossible to
have close relations without sharing and implementing beliefs of the Union. Georgia
as well as many other countries do agree with the ideology of the EU and is ready to
implement rules to achieve deeper relation38. European Neighborhood Policy is a
voluntary processes based on bi-lateral and multilateral agreements assisting Georgia
for its successful transformation.
Increasing importance of Georgia has been caused by various factors. In particular,
democratic changes of the country have caused bigger interest of Europe towards
Georgia as well as the whole South Caucasus region. Also, geographical proximity
gave rise to new opportunities. It became in the interests of EU to make Georgia
institutionally strong to be able to oppose the risks associated with security39. Europe
recognizes current or potential challenges of energy security, pays more attention to
the new objective of finding alternative energy resources. In this context, Caspian
energy sources and Georgia, as a transit country of these resources to Europe is of a
bigger interest40.
38
Personal Interview with David Jalaghania
Personal Interview with Alexander Maisuradze
40
Personal Interview with David Dondua and Robert Liddell
39
55
Georgia’s inclusion in ENP was a process when EU and Georgia negotiated to further
their interests. (Kennedy Gavin, Negotiation Techniques, Soren Hilligsoe Outzen
2006). It is important to assess the relative importance of those interests and the
negotiation process between EU and Georgia.
EU-Georgia partnership under the ENP can be analyzed as “relationship” interest
with a strategic view for long run perspective to become a partner country of the EU.
5.1.2 EU-Georgia “Relationship” Interests
After more than a decade of bilateral political and economic interactions with the EU
in the framework of its Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, European Union
has been developing a new stage in relations and Georgia has been included in the
European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), putting EU-Georgia relations on a higher
level. EU-Georgia “relationship” interests approach is based on bilateral agreement
with combination of respect, obligation and partnership41.
The Rose Revolution and the subsequent free and fair elections in Georgia enabled
the country and the rest of the South Caucasus to be included into the ENP initiative
in June, 2004 (Kapanadze S. 2004). The Georgian government, together with EC was
conducting negotiations on the ENP Action Plans. The ENPAP does not change the
PCA; it still remains the main legal framework for EU-Georgian relations. However,
the ENPAP represents more concrete document, unlike the PCA, which lacks the
details.42 The Action Plan strengthened the political dialogue component already set
up in the PCA and added significant components as well, such as measures for a
gradual and partial integration into the EU’s internal market, cooperation in Justice
and Home Affairs, cooperation in the fields of energy, transport and environment,
research and innovation.
41
42
Personal Interview with David Jalaghania
Personal interview with Archil Gegeshidze.
56
The European Union’s Neighborhood Policy Action Plan for Georgia could be a
useful mechanism for promotion of reforms, if used effectively. It should allow EUGeorgia relation to become more focused.
ENP offers the opportunity for the EU and Georgia to develop an increasingly close
relationship, going beyond co-operation, to involve a significant measure of economic
integration and a deepening of political co-operation. The EU and Georgia are
determined to make use of this occasion to enhance their relations and to promote
stability and security. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia)
The level of ambition of the “relationship” interest depends on the degree of
Georgia’s commitment to common values as well as its capacity to implement jointly
agreed priorities, in compliance with international and European norms and
principles43. The progress of the relationship will acknowledge fully Georgia’s efforts
and concrete achievements in meeting those commitments.
5.1.3 ENPAP Negotiation process
ENP is more in favor of bilateralism than a multilateral approach because it
concentrates on developing bilateral relations between the EU and individual
countries (Smith K. 2001). ENPAP negotiation process highlights the values in
developing and furthering effective working relations between EU and Georgia. The
individual country AP is based on the principle of “differentiation” and is modified to
take account of Georgia’s needs and capacities, as well as its existing relations with
the EU (Ferrero-Waldner 2005). Three rounds of negotiation on ENPAP raise
different positions on specific set of issues that both side, EU and Georgia wanted to
decide in its favor. However, many different sets of issues during negotiation process
reflected the same interests, extent to which the EU and Georgia both showed
43
Personal Interview with David Jalaghania and Alexander Maisuradze
57
considerable equality on carrying out their points for successful promotion of mutual
interests.44 Interests are the concerns, needs, fears, and desires underlying EUGeorgian positions (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991). Negotiation under ENPAP
reflects decision making process by EU and Georgia, both having interests to
determine how to allocate resources, or work together in the future.
5.2 Security Challenges
For any country and especially for Georgia, security is the primary concern45. The
European Neighborhood Policy is oriented towards preventing new conflicts and
security threats46. After the latest enlargement, EU shares its external sea border with
Georgia, by the Eastern part of the Black Sea. Consequently EU is now directly
exposed to the threats from Georgia. As a result a strong Georgia in the interest of
Europe matters more than ever. Therefore, further sectoral analyze will lead us to the
answers of the question “what are the goals for the EU concerning Georgia and
regional cooperation and what are the achievements and planned actions in ENP
concerning EU/Georgia relation and regional cooperation”.
EU and the ENP can serve a valuable role in assisting the securing of the state of
Georgia. From a Georgian perspective the security expertise that can be derived from
a relationship with the EU and through the implementation of the ENP is
immeasurable. In addition, the resources that these entities can offer Georgia are
essential to the capacity of the country to overcome these threats. Also when the
security issues in Georgia are stable the country will have the ability to expand
economically, politically and socially47.
44
Personal Interview with Archil Gegeshidze
45
Personal Interview with Alexander Maisuradze
46
Personal Interview with Robert Liddell
Personal Interview with David Dondua
47
58
The starting point of the ENP comprehensive approach is the recognition of the
interdependence between all dimensions of security – political, economic, cultural,
environmental, military – hence the need to formulate integrated policies on all of
them (Biscop, 2005). This comprehensive approach is translated into the overall
objective of “effective multilateralism”, a stronger international society, well
functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order. At the
global level, the EU seeks to pursue this objective mainly through the regional
partnerships and organizations. With regard to its neighbourhood, the EU itself
assumes a leading role in order to “promote a ring of well governed countries as
European Union neighbours with who can enjoy close and cooperative relations”
(Ferrero-Waldner 2006). The same approach is to be followed by: dialogue,
cooperation and partnership in all fields of external action, putting to value the whole
range of instruments at the disposal of the EU.
5.3 Military Sector
Military threats are the core of the security concerns. (Buzan; 1998). Military
capability of states threatens the other states. Especially if the relationship is in
enmity pattern, the capabilities would trigger further threat. Geography shapes
perceptions and operation of military threats and vulnerabilities in two ways: through
distance and terrain. (Buzan; 1998). Distance implies that military threats are more
difficult to be controlled and prevented in short distance while terrain can reduce or
increase the vulnerabilities according to the landscape and climate conditions. History
is another factor determining the military threat that past experience shapes the
present perceptions. Political factors such as degree of recognition of each other and
ideological divergences also trigger military threats.
Breached territorial integrity is the primary contributing to various other problems
that destabilize the economic political and social stability of Georgia. Georgia's state
borders have sill not been established; unrestrained territories serve as a safe place for
illegal militant groups (National Security Concept of Georgia). These areas create
59
sensitive conditions for a variety of terrorist groups and provide rich ground for
illegal imports and multinational organized crime.
As a result, the breach of
territorial integrity, if not confronted in the upcoming years may jeopardize the
survival of Georgia as a viable state (National Security Concept of Georgia).
As it comes to the European Union the military sector also remains of vital interest
and importance. The EU’s fundamental aim is to create a situation where military
conflict is unthinkable, and expanding to the region the area of peace, stability and
prosperity. One of the key objectives of the European Neighborhood Policy is to
contribute to the settlement of regional conflicts in the EU’s neighborhood. Primary
concerns of the ENP is better coordination and integration of the political, economic
and security dimensions in order to contribute to conflict resolution in the EU’s
neighborhood.
It is in the EU’s best interest that countries on the EU borders are well-governed
because, neighboring weak states, who are engaged in violent conflicts, where
organized crime flourishes, create security threats for the EU. (The European Security
Strategy (ESS))
5.3.1 Conflict resolution
The EU has been a player in conflict resolution efforts around the secessionist areas
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Since 1997 the EU has been financing the
rehabilitation of the conflict zones in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. EU assistance for
these regions amounted to 33 million Euros between 1997 and 2005. From 2006, the
EU significantly increased its budget and became the biggest international donor in
the conflict regions (Georgia; Country Strategy paper 2004).
Activating the role of EU in conflict resolution is one of the main issues for Georgia.
The EU believes that even at the given stage it is sufficiently involved in resolution of
internal conflicts of Georgia. EU is careful about getting involved in new conflicts,
60
such as Abkhazia and Ossetia, despite elements of engagement; the EU chooses not to
play too large role in conflict resolution issues in Georgia. Although it always
emphasizes that it considers Abkhazia and Ossetia as part of Georgia and participates
in peacekeeping processes. The government of Georgia expects EU to increase the
number as well as efficiency of the projects in the conflict zones with participation of
Georgia and that it will secure more international interest towards the conflict
resolution process.
However EU focuses on Georgia’s reforms and transformation instead, which is seen
as a precondition for settling the conflicts48. Rather than conflict resolution, the
Action Plan’s first priorities are rule of law and improving the investment climate.
The EU approach is entirely justified. Most political and economic reforms in
Georgia can (and should) be undertaken without holding them hostage to the
unsolved conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In any case, the conflicts cannot be
solved without an attractive, prosperous, democratic and Europeanized Georgia.
5.4 Political Sector
Political security is the widest sector in certain aspects, especially when it comes to
the threats to state sovereignty (Buzan et al., 1998). Political threats stem from the
great diversity of ideas and traditions. Legitimacy crisis, problems in democratic
system and human rights, secessionist movements, pressure on government for
change, ideological and identity problems are among political threats.
Georgia is attempting to establish itself in the region, as it relates to the development
of a successful government and political stability.
The objectives and goals
established by the Georgian government are consistent with many of the goals and
objectives of the ENP.
48
Personal Interview with Robert Liddell
61
Political reforms undertaken by President Saakashvili's administration have laid the
foundations that should allow Georgia to become a fully fledged democratic state.
Success in the fight against widespread corruption and the intensification of external
relations with the EU, Georgia showed the ability for positive changes.
However, Georgia is still in the process of consolidating the good results achieved so
far. Georgia’s democratic institutions are in place, but further efforts need to be made
to ensure that a democratic and human right culture takes root in Georgian society.
Developing a functioning parliamentary opposition, adopting an effective system of
institutional checks and balances, allowing a participatory civil society to develop,
and encouraging local governance through the newly established local authorities are
important challenges that Georgia still faces to complete the transition from a postrevolutionary country to a modern, democratic, market-oriented state.
The main objective of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) is the mutual
interest of the EU and its neighbors in promoting reform, the rule of law, stable
democracies and prosperity – security and stability - throughout the neighborhood of
the enlarged European Union. The EU offers its neighbors an intensified political
dialogue based on shared values and common interests in tackling common problems.
An objective of the action plan is to enhance the degree of legal expertise and lawscreening while harmonizing Georgian legislation with the European standards
(EU/Georgia Action Plan). The action plan also desires to promote a greater level of
political pluralism by strengthening the functioning of political parties in Georgia
(EU/Georgia Action Plan). The ENP pays special attention increasing safety of
borders and ensuring political stability.
5.5 Social/Societal Sector
Societal threats are often part of a larger package of military and political
threats.(Buzan, 1991:122). Suppression of sub-identities, ethnic differences, rise
62
of societal violence, migration and population growth are among those threats.
While social security is about individuals and is largely economic, societal security is
about collectives and their identity (Buzan, 1998: 120).
5.5.1 Internal conflicts
As it relates specifically to the society sector one of the main thrusts of the action plan
is to encourage peaceful solutions to internal differences or conflicts. The action plan
calls for improved efforts and for additional economic assistance from the EU for the
conflict resolution process within Georgia.
5.5.2 Human Rights
Since the Rose Revolution, Georgian government has seemed ready to reform its laws
and policies in accordance of human rights, to bring them into line with European
standards and made some progress in improving its legislation to comply with
international human rights standards. But, this has not always corresponded with
improvements in practice.
However the European Neighborhood Policy Action Plan for Georgia sets clear
prospects and could be a useful mechanism for promotion of human right reforms, if
used effectively.
In order to ensure consistency with international human rights standards when
carrying out reforms through changes in legislation or the creation of other legal
documents, the Action Plan includes the requirement that focus not only on changes
in Georgia’s legislative framework that are achievable in the short run but also on
implementation and changes in practice, which require longer-term monitoring.
Effective monitoring of the Action Plan’s implementation will encourage compliance
and allow for timely EU intervention and assistance when needed.
63
5.6 Economic Sector
Economic security means self-reliance of a state to feed its population and
industry and its ability to have access to outside supplies, markets and credits. At
the regional level, it is related to the new regionalist logic of interaction between the
states and the impact of global economic transitions on the relations of the regional
states. The economic threat is highly linked to the political and military threat. The
economic welfare of a country has direct influence on military sector as financial
sources could be used to strengthen the military capabilities of a state. In addition,
there is a strong link between economy and the overall power of the state within the
international system as well as economic decline threatens the domestic stability of a
state. Economic threats resemble to an attack on the state that result in material loss,
strain on various institutions of the state and even substantial damage to the
health and longevity of the population. (Buzan, 1991:130).
As it relates to the economic sector Georgia can benefit from the resources that the
EU offers through the neighbourhood policy (Appendix10). Economic development
through ENP is important also as it promotes poverty reduction efforts for Georgia.
Economic stability can greatly improve the quality of life within Georgia and promote
great educational and health opportunities.
5.6.1 Free Trade
Both, the government of Georgia and representatives of EU recognize high interests
in EU-Georgia relation and free trade development under the ENP process. According
to the Georgian government this will have significant influence over the development
of the economy of the country, although the necessary pre-condition for reaching this
goal for Georgia is to ensure full compliance of the internal regulations with
European standards. Government of Georgia believes that full implementation of EU
requirements regarding internal market that is associated with the increase of state
64
regulations, will limit corruption and improve business environment for this particular
stage49.
From an economic standpoint it is also in the best interest of the EU to ensure that
Georgia has a stable economy. When a stable economy is in place many other factors
will also fall into places and the country will not have to rely upon the EU for funding
no more. In other words, it is in the best interests of the EU to use its resources to
ensure that Georgia has an efficient economy because poverty breeds all sorts of
negative attributes including violence and corruption.
5.7 Environmental Sector
The nature of environmental problems as a long term danger makes the
environmental
security
very
weak
in
comparison
with
other
security
sectors.(Haddadi, 1999). Nonetheless, it started to count in international relations
and to raise conflicts between states. The environmental sector includes several
issues like disruption of ecosystems, energy problems, economic problems, food
problems and civil conflicts. Environmental issues can also create security threats for
the states.
With regard to global environment issues and climate change in particular, Georgia
acceded to the Kyoto Protocol in 1999, and therefore needs to implement the relevant
provisions and, where appropriate, implement concrete policies and measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in particular in the energy and heavy industry
sectors.
The Action Plan for Georgia desires to support sustainable growth including the
safeguarding of the environment (EU/Georgia Action Plan). EU and Georgia plan to
49
Personal Interview with Archil Gegeshidze
65
work together to guarantee that conditions for acceptable environmental management
are established and can be implemented.
Overall, environment legislation in Georgia is in place in several areas, but still needs
further development, in particular with regard to implementing legislation. Georgia
faces difficulties with implementation and enforcement of environment legislation
due to limited administrative capacities and financial resources, especially at regional
and local levels.
5.8 What do facts in these five sectors speak for?
The evaluation of the five sectors of security shows that the relationship between EU
and Georgia is marked by the security interdependence since the solution of these
challenges requires collective rather than unilateral action and needs cooperation in
each of them. The linkage between these sectors and the challenges within each, have
both local and global causes and effects. Thus, the pattern of interdependence gets
deeper for EU and Georgia under the ENP. The security challenges depicted that they
are interrelated and make both the EU and Georgia interdependent. Rising density
of relations and security interdependence premises to frame the ENP. This
picture confirms the necessity for cooperative action, as the root-causing security
challenges does not lie just under political or economic cooperation but rather on
cooperation in each sector. The EU with specific approach towards Georgia under the
ENPAP tries to enhance structural reforms in different sectors as each sector
represented above can cause threats to securitization in local as well as in global
terms.
The security interests of the EU are in the forefront of the ENP gaining success in
Georgia as a part of the South Caucasus Region. Security challenges along this
chapter illustrates that EU promotes the ENP in order to grasp full stability in
Georgia and prosperity within the South Caucasus Region.
66
5.9 ENP and Security Challenges in the Regional Context
Regions may be defined and distinguished according to an approximate combination
of geographic, social, cultural and political variables. Barry Buzan has developed the
concept of the Regional Security Complex in effort to highlight the importance of the
regional level in international security affairs. Security relations presume high levels
of interdependence, multiple interactions and shared sensitivities and vulnerabilities
among the states.
Even in an era of globalisation, geography still matters, while the security issues
arising in the neighbourhood of the EU are potential threats because of geographic
proximity. In the security complex theory, the existence of the security
interdependence and the pattern of interdependence are determining for a
regional cooperation. Georgia’s inclusion in South Caucasus Region under the ENP
should be considered as a “Regional Security Complex” defined as “group of States
whose primary security concerns link together sufficiently closely that their national
securities cannot realistically be considered apart from one another” (Buzan 1991). It
is logical therefore that in this area the EU assumes responsibility and directly takes
the lead in promoting peace and security, for a stable neighbourhood is a necessity for
Europe’s own security. The actual development of the CFSP and ESDP can be seen
in the light of Europe’s desire to fulfil security challenge through ENP.
Promotion of the regional cooperation as an EU foreign policy clearly illustrates how
EU external relations are formed under the influence of the internal experiences. EU
recognizes the South Caucasus as a significant component of the Union’s foreign
policy strategy. Nature of EU external relations is considered to be suitable for the
export of EU economic and political principles to third countries. EU uses regional
cooperation as a policy instrument towards South Caucasus to achieve peace,
economic and political stability within the region. The development and
implementation of the ENP is in the vital interest of both sides: the EU will gain more
67
influence through the ENP, which in turn will also enable the three states to stabilize
their political and economic situation and integrate more closely into the EU.
Regional cooperation is defined as joint efforts of neighboring countries to work
together on the issues of common interests. This broad term has two sub sections.
Regional integration refers to removing policy imposed barriers to regional
movement of goods, services, people and capital. Regional cooperation on the other
hand, aims to reduce other barriers that can facilitate economic interdependence and
common management of recourses, such as barriers in transportation and
communication infrastructure (COM (95)). Certainly, inclusion of Georgia together
with the South Caucasus countries into the ENP is viewed as a positive development,
which has generated hope of larger EU role in the whole region. This move sent an
important message that the EU is committed to support the three states on their way
towards building democratic societies and creating workable market economies. In
response, the leaderships of South Caucasus countries consider the ENP to be, solid
opportunity for deeper regional cooperation and further integration into the EU.
Regionalism stresses the factors including cultural identity, historical context,
degree of economic and political homogeneity, and security that explain the
regional formations and arrangements. Therefore, dynamics of regionalization within
South Caucasus includes cultural, security, economic and political development and
cooperation. According to this paradigm, regional security arrangements can
absorb the tensions easily, reduce the risk of bilateral conflicts and could
intervene in the intra-state conflicts which threaten regional security. (Hettne,
1999)
In result, EU has formulated a true rational strategy towards Georgia as a part of
South Caucasus Region. In other words, the EU outlined a strategic vision of its own
role for enhancing relationships with Georgia dealing on a regional level.
68
5.10 Regional Cooperation and South Caucasus
Georgia’s priority, concerning regional cooperation is regional security. This,
however, cannot be achieved without stability and economic development within
South Caucasus region. Again, in order to obtain stability and economic development
certain conditions have to be fulfilled.
Georgia’s vision of the South Caucasus region is its belief that regional states have to
cooperate in the promotion of regional security and economic cooperation. Regional
security can be developed through economic cooperation, which would bring not only
stability and economic dynamism to all three small independent states, but also
benefit regional powers, both in their security and in their economies. South Caucasus
may play the role of a bridge for regional powers, even more the role of a bridge in
East-West and North-South trade.
The conflicts which have already taken place in the Caucasus have shown EU that
internal problems and instability within each of the Caucasian states may spill over
the regional boundaries, and affect the interests of the EU, including their security
concerns. They may trigger unexpected processes and may even threaten the security
of the EU.
From the regionalism view, the geographic proximity of the EU to the South
Caucasus makes Europe vulnerable to those security challenges as well as any spread
of instability from the region to the EU. This makes the ENP initiative inevitably
compulsory for the EU while for the South Caucasus the ENP is also unavoidable
to promote stability and prosperity in the region. Thus, this proximity makes the
regionalizing logic strong.
5.11 ENP Tool for Regional Cooperation
69
In point of fact, EU chose to apply regional approach rather than individual towards
Georgia. But on the other hand EU provides the three South Caucasus countries with
equal opportunities exploiting their realistic possibilities within individual Action
Plans.
Certainly, EU has concerns in Georgia as a part of South Caucasus region. Inclusion
of Georgia within South Caucasus in the ENP pointed exclusively to an increased EU
visibility and engagement in the whole region. Stability and security are indeed of
great importance for the EU. More exactly, EU faces both real opportunities in the
South Caucasus region and obvious challenges with each South Caucasus Country
individually, including Georgia. First and foremost, the current challenges include the
issue of regional security and stability.
As it comes to opportunities, EU focus on energy resources of the Caspian Sea and
the role of the South Caucasus as both a resource-rich area and transit corridor for
carrying petroleum and gas to Europe, which remains heavily dependant on Persian
Gulf oil and Russian gas supplies. Without doubt, the EU seeks for economic
objectives in South Caucasus, which is potentially a lucrative and attractive place for
foreign direct investment, especially for oil multinational companies. Hence, conflict
resolution should be regarded as a prerequisite for the development of energy and
infrastructure projects each of which has a vital importance for the entire region.
On the other hand the ENP has offered Georgia a great opportunity to come closer to
South Caucasus countries within the region and advance the relationships with the
EU.
5.12 EU-Georgia: reasons for engagement
5.12.1 The common security context of the EU and Georgia
Georgia represents an important test of the EU’s ability to take responsibility for the
security of the European neighborhood, and develop a meaningful policy for a
70
country that cannot be considered as candidate for accession. The EU wants to have
stable neighbors, for the EU’s internal security and also for stability as a prerequisite
for
50
prosperity
and
economic
development
in
the
countries
concerned
. There is no much difference between developing security and stability within the
regions and what the ENP is offering to its partner countries. “ENP is European
Union Policy, with the bases of security strategy, including aspects of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy of the EU. Common Foreign and Security Policy may not
be part of the ENP exactly, but it is a closest policy that leads to a total package from
the European Union to maintain security and stability within the neighborhood51”.
ENP embodies the EU’s desire for stability, good governance and economic reforms
within Georgia and South Caucasus Region. EU sees Georgia in a wider context due
to the active interest in the region for energy security.
The top priority for Georgia from security reasons is to engage the EU in the peaceful
resolution of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The conflict zones in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are threats of becoming international centers of
smuggling, drug trafficking, illegal arms deals etc. The implications from these
conflict zones could stretch far beyond Georgia’s borders. Also political instability in
Georgia would have economic implications for the EU.
5.12.2 Securing a stable European energy supply
It is significant to note that Georgia provides a critical land corridor for the transit of
Caspian oil and gas to the West. Provision of Caspian energy sources to the western
markets increased the role of Georgia for Europe since the energy routes in South
Caucasus region decrease Europe's energy dependency on Russia. This factor links
Europe to elimination of the risks of explosions in unsafe areas and this should be
50
51
Personal interview with Robert Liddell
Ibid.
71
used by Georgia to initiate and request increased European involvement in regulation
of conflicts.
Georgia has a strategic position by its geopolitical location. EU views Georgia within
South Caucasus region as integrally linked to the Caspian Sea and energy reserves in
Central Asia52. Georgia is important as a transit area for energy supplies to Europe,
which will lower the EU’s dependence on Russia as energy supplier. Georgia is also
interested in ensuring to a significant extent Europe’s energy security, which could be
supported by two factors: Europe’s demand on Caspian energy will increase essential
partnership and interdependence of EU and Georgia. This will speed up the process of
Georgia’s transformation into a European country. And another also very important
issue is that Georgia as a transit country will have a certain economical benefit from
this53.
The European Union’s interests require a continued engagement with Georgia,
through more effective economic, security and cultural cooperation in the framework
of the ENP.
5.13 Summary of the chapter
The first part of this chapter evaluated the developments achieved so far between EUGeorgia under the ENP negotiation process and has identified interest of the
relationship. In order to create a security partnership EU-Georgia relation is based on
relationship interests with further cooperation prospects.
Second part showed that the ENP has identified the challenges within the AP
according to Georgia. From the comprehensive analysis defined in the Regional
Security Complex Theory, at the bottom end lays the domestic politics. Improvement
52
Personal Interview with Robert Liddell
53
Personal Interview with Archil Gegeshidze
72
of the domestic conditions within Georgia would enhance the security as the analyses
of the security challenges showed.
Third part shows EU-Georgia relation at regional level and ENP as Regional
Cooperation. At the regional level the EU tries to build links among the states within
South Caucasus region. ENP is the largest initiative comprising states under one
framework and the most comprehensive with its focus on the fields of different
sectors. Partnership in the ENP influences the regional and domestic developments.
This creates probability to avoid risks of further security threats for the EU, Georgia
and South Caucasus Region.
73
VI Outcomes
The aim of this part of the thesis is to answer the main research question, by
presenting implications derived from the analyses carried throughout the study.
The aim of the Neighbourhood Policy is to achieve shared prosperity and values by
creating close partnerships with the EU’s neighbouring states, bringing them as close
to the EU as possible without being a member, which should lead to in-depth
economic integration, close political and cultural relations and a joint responsibility
for conflict prevention.
6.1 Evaluation of EU interests towards Georgia
The EU has four direct interests in Georgia. First, the European Union has an interest
in the fulfillment of the expectations that were born with the Rose Revolution in
Georgia. Before change of power, Georgia was a failing state with a failing
democracy. The Rose Revolution marked Georgia’s return to the path of democratic
transition, and transformation began with number of reforms, and for the restoration
of political stability. EU has a clear interest in Georgia fulfilling its transformation
into fully democratic state.
Second, it is important for the EU that good governance is established in Georgia and
its territorial integrity is restored peacefully. Apart from the unacceptable cost of
human casualties in Georgia itself, renewed conflict would leave the South Caucasus
over also more widely through the Black Sea region, and possibly affect the security
of EU member states and candidate countries. The EU is interested in the peaceful
settlement of Georgia’s conflicts as the resumption of hot wars would unravel all of
the gains Georgia has achieved since the Rose Revolution and increase doubts over
74
the countries future. EU has direct interest in peaceful resolution of frozen conflicts in
Georgia.
Third, Georgia is an important neighbor of the enlarged European Union. The EU has
a number of objective interests in its stability and prosperity. A weak and failing
Georgia could serve as a source of threats towards Europe. The EU has an interest in
Georgia not becoming a challenge in terms of international organized crime, drug
trafficking from Central Asia or the pressure of illegal labor migration. A democratic
and stable neighborhood is important for EU security.
Finally, the Union has a direct interest in the stability of Georgia or the transit of
energy production from the Caspian Sea. With the opening of the Baku-TbilisiCeyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, Georgia has emerged as an important transit state for
Caspian oil to European Markets54. The BTC pipeline is the key for securing
European access to this market. BTCs sister project, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum natural
gas pipeline, also confirms Georgia’s centrality. The EU estimates that its energy
imports will rise from 50% to cover 70% by 2030 (COM (202)). In this case,
Georgia’s role in securing access to Caspian Sea energy reserves is vital.
6.2 Evaluation Georgian interests under the Action Plan
The full implementation of the Action Plan will put Georgia in a winning position
that will significantly improve relationships with EU. Certainly, implementation of
European Neighborhood Policy action Plan would only have positive results. Besides,
implementation of the reforms described in the Action Plan will improve the quality
of life in Georgia and turn into a stronger country. Accordingly, experts believe that
implementation of the Action Plan falls under the interests of Georgia and European
Union.
54
See the discussion of the BTC in S.Fred Starr and Svante Cornell (eds.), ‘The BTC Pipline:Oil
Window to the West’
75
Due to the above reasons, there is a growing interest of Europe to successfully
implement peaceful processes and democratic transformation of Georgia. Currently
Georgia together with South Caucasus Region is one of the main challenges for the
EU in terms of energy security, although Georgia should better show the aspiration
towards European values and democratic transformation. That is why European
Neighborhood Policy is an important instrument on this road. EU and Georgia
negotiated on Action Plan which further generates strategies for country in subjects
such as political economy, security, democracy, human rights etc.
EU Neighborhood Policy Action Plan was formed in 2006 by EU and the Georgian
government. The plan is an important document defining strategic goals of EUGeorgia partnership. Its implementation should promote development of growing
relationships between Georgia and Europe that will increase the level of economic
integration and deeper political cooperation. Implementation of Action Plan will
assist Georgia to enhance norms and standards of EU.
Full implementation of ENP Action Plan, offers Georgia close collaboration in the
issues of politics and security, economy and culture as well as active regional and
mutual border responsibility for conflict resolution. The goals of ENP are based on
respect to shared values and efforts to effectively implement political, economic and
institutional reforms in Georgia.
Proposing European Neighborhood Policy Action Plan to Georgia does not
automatically promise offering EU membership. Implementation of the European
neighborhood Policy is an important step for integration with EU. Its successful
implementation will contribute to advancement of the reforms in Georgia and serve as
a step forward for building democracy (Appendix 11).
76
VII Conclusion
This part provides final conclusions regarding the results of the current thesis
highlighting the major findings from the research questions.
This discussion was concerned with the EU-Georgian relations utilizing the ENP as a
strategic tool for political analyses. This thesis attempted to assess the EU/Georgia
relation and ENP process in aspect of security within the theoretical framework of
RSCT, Regionalism and Negotiation Theory. This study showed that EU-Georgia
relations have enhanced after the ENP. The EU is the partner who Georgia sees as
the most engaging one today. The EU and Georgia with Action Plan in the framework
of ENP set up an agreement which involves both political and security issues in
exchange of enhanced trading deals and participation in different developing projects.
EU interest in Georgia can be found in the overall purpose of the European Union,
which as evidenced by the research, involves regional security and economic
development. Existing cooperation projects and positive developments within South
Caucasus Region require attention. New Regionalism with its broader perspective of
studding non-homogenous regions provides an explanation of regional cooperation in
the South Caucasus Region.
As it relates to security, Georgia is in a very vulnerable location and has already
experienced security threats from external sources. Instability in Georgia and South
Caucasus Region could be a serious threat to EU security. As such it is in the best
interest of the European Union to use its resources to secure and to promote
development within the area as much as possible.
Overall, the research seems to validate the need for the ENP and for good relations
between the European Union and Georgia. Such a relationship is in the best interest
of both parties; the EU needs Georgia to secure its energy supply and no more be
dependant and Georgia needs the EU’s resources to be economically stable and
politically secure.
77
Ultimate objectives for EU/Georgia relations identified by this research is preventing
and settling ongoing disputes and conflicts, establishing close economic and political
partnerships based on shared values, prosperity and security; ENP process for
EU/Georgia stresses the willingness for further cooperation.
78
References:
Books
Biscop, S. (2005) “The European Security Strategy: A Global Agenda for Positive
Power”. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd
Bretherton, C. and Vogler, J. (1999) “The European Union as a Global Actor”.
London: Routledge.
Buzan, Barry (1991) “People, States and Fear”. Hemel Hempstead (UK)/Boulder:
Harvester Wheatsheaf/Lynne Rienner.
Buzan Barry and Ole Wæver, with Jaap de Wilde (1998) “Security: A New
Framework For Analysis”. Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner.
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). “Regions and Powers: The Structure of International
Security”. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Elgström, O. & Jönsson, C. (Eds.). (2005). “European Union Negotiations: Processes,
Networks and Institutions”. London: Routledge.
Ficher, R. and Ury, W.L. (1981). “Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement without
Giving In”. Boston: Houghton-Miffin, p. 20
Hettne, Bjorn, and András Inotai, with Osvaldo Sunkel (eds.) (1999). “Globalism and
the New Regionalism”. Britain: MacMillan Press.
Hettne, Bjorn (1999). “Globalization and New Regionalism: The Second Great
Transformation” in Hettne, Bjorn, and András Inotai, with Osvaldo Sunkel (eds.),
“Globalism and the New Regionalism”. Britain: MacMillan Press.
Robert K. Yin (1994). “Case Study Research”. Sage Publications.
Kennedy Gavin, (2006). “Negotiation Techniques”. Soren Hilligsoe Outzen
Kinnear T. & Taylor J. (1996). “Marketing Research: an Applied Approach”. New
York, McGraw-Hill.
Kumaar V, Aaker David A, George S. Day(2004). “Essentials of Marketing
Research”. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kwok, J. (2005). Red Blues: Strife in Post-Soviet Georgia. Harvard International
Review
79
Lax, D. and Sebenius, J. “The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation
and Competitive Gain”. New York: Free Press
Marsh, David and Stoker, Gerry (eds.) (2002). “Theories and methods in political
science”. 2nd edition, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave
Merriam, S.B. (1998). “Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education”. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, USA.
Midgaard, K. and Underdal, A. (1977) “Multiparty Conferences”, in D. Druckman
(ed.) “Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives”, London: Sage.
Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln.(2000). “Handbook of Qualitative Research”.
2nd edition. Sage Publications.
Rosamund, B. (2000). “Theories of European Integration”. London: Macmillan
Raymond Cohen, (1995). “Negotiating Across Cultures”. United States Institute of
Peace Press
Rondeli, A., (2001). “‘The choice of Independent Georgia’, in: The Security of the
Caspian Sea Region”, ed. Gennady Chufrin, Oxford University Press,
Seely, Robert (2001). “Russo-Chechen Conflict, 1800-2000: a Deadly Embrace”,
London: Frank Cass
Wæver Ole 1995; (1997). “Concepts of Security”. Copenhagen: Institute of Political
Science, University of Copenhagen.
Articles
Attina, Fulvio (1996). Regional Cooperation in Global Perspective. The Case of the
mediterranean regions.Jean Monnet Working Papers in Comparative and
International Politics, December 1996- JMWP 04.96.
Attina, Fulvio (2002). Security Cooperation at the Regional Level: from Opposed
Military Alliances to Security Partnerships. Jean Monnet Working Papers in
Comparative and International Politics, October 2002- JMWP no.45.
80
Attina, Fulvio (2003). Realist and Liberal Views of the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership. European Foreign Affairs Review 8, pp.181-199.
Buzan, Barry (1996). Rethinking Security After the Cold War., Cooperation and
Conflict, vol.32, no.1, pp.5-28.
Coolsaet Rik and Biscop Sven (2004). “The World is the Stage – A Global Security
Strategy for the European Union”. In: Notre Europe Policy Papers, 2004, No. 8,
http://www.notre-europe.asso.fr/fichiers/Policypaper8.pdf.
Corso, Molly. “Georgian-Russian Relations Continue to Deteriorate.” Power
and Interest News Report. 7 December 2005. http://www.pinr.com/
report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=408&language_id=1
Dale, R. (2003). European Union Properly Construed Policy Review N.122
The European Neighbourhood Policy as a conflict prevention tool EPC Issue Paper
No.47 June 2006 By Fraser Cameron in collaboration with Rosa Balfour
A European Policy Centre — Conflict Prevention Partnership Publication
EU/Georgia ENP Country Action Plan; Country Report, Georgia; Retrieved from:
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=156&lang_id=ENG
Ferrero-Waldner, Benita (2005). “Implementing and Promoting the European
Neighborhood Policy.” Communication to the Commission. Brussels. 22 November
2005.
Ferrero-Waldner B. (2006) SPEECH/06/331in a speech at the Conference on
“Protecting Europe: Policies for enhancing security in the European Union”
30.05.2006 “The EU’s role in protecting Europe’s security”
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/06/331&format=
HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs “Draft Elements for Inclusion in an
EU/Georgia ENP Action Plan”. Amended on 20 December, 2005.
Gegeshidze, Archil, 2006. “Georgia in the Wider Europe Context: Bridging
Divergent Interpretations.” Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International
Studies. Tbilisi.
Haddadi, Said (1999) The Western Mediterranean as a Security Complex: A Liasison
between the European Union and the Middle East?, Jean Monnet Working
Papers in Comparative and International Politics, November 1999 - JMWP no.24.
81
“Invest
in
Georgia
2007”,
Retrieved
http://www.investingeorgia.org/i2/INVEST_IN_GEORGIA.pdf
from:
Kapanadze, Sergi 2004, “Georgia and the EU: The Paths to Europe.”
http://eurojournal.org/files/kapanadze.pdf
Lynch, Dov. “Why Georgia matters.” Chaillot Papers N12, Institute for Security
Studies, February 2006.
M.Vahl, Models for the European Neighborhood Policy, Centre for European Policy
Studies, Working Document No.218/February 2005
National Security Concept of Georgia; Retrieved January 3, 2007 from:
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?sec_id=24&lang_id=ENG
Nodia,G. “The Dynamics and Sustainability of the Rose Revolution.” In
Democratisation in the European Neighborhood, edited by Michael Emerson.
Brussels, Center for European Policy Studies, December, 2005.
“Paving the Way for a New Neighborhood Instrument”, 2003. Retrieved January 3,
2007 from: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com03_393_en.pdf
“Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, Georgia.”
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ceeca/pca/pca_georgia.pdf
Rochowanski, Almut. “EU Extends Cooperation with Georgia, but Expresses
Caution
on
Accession
Issue.”
Eurasianet.org,
14
May
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav061704.shtml
2004.
Rondeli, Alexander 2001. “The Choice of Independent Georgia.” In The Security
of the Caspian Sea Region. Edited by Gennady Chufrin. Oxford: Oxford
University Press,.
Saakashvili, Mikheil. “Europe’s Third Wave of Liberation.” Financial Times. 20
December, 2004. http://www.president.gov.ge/?l=E&m=5&sm=3&id=167.
Smith, Karen E., (2001). “Western Actors and the Promotion of Democracy.” In
Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe. Vol. 2. International and Transnational
Factors. Edited by Jan Ziolenka and Alex Pravda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Karen E. (2005). “Outsiders: the European Neighborhood Policy.”
International Affairs No. 81/4.
Statement and recommendations of EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation
Committee, Sixth Meeting, 22/23 November, 2004,
82
http://www.eu-integration.gov.ge/pdfs/REcommendations_E_final.pdf.
S.Fred Starr and Svante Cornell (2005) (eds.), “The BTC Pipeline: Oil Window to the
West”, Washington: CACI John Hopkins University.
Socor, V., (2005). “Europe must not lose sight of the frozen conflicts”, Eurasia Daily
Monitor, Jamestown Foundation, June 3-5,
World Bank Report (2006). “Corruption Eased in Transition Countries from 20022005”
Piebalgs A. (2007). Energy Commissioner “Oil and gas geopolitics” Speech at the
Lisbon Energy Forum 2007 Lisbon.
The European Union institution Official Documents
The European Commission:
Communication from the Commission (COM) is found on: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
- COM (95) 219 final, European Community Support for Regional Economic
Integration
Efforts among Developing Countries
- COM (2000) Green Paper on “Security of Energy Supply”
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/green-paper-energy-supply/doc/contributions/200202/2002-02-27-i-2.pdf
- COM (2002) “Towards a European Strategy for the Security of European Energy
Supply” Communication from the Commission to the European Council of June
http/europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/lirevert/final/report_en.pdf
- European Commission (2002) “Common Foreign and Security Policy” Retrieved
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/cfsp/intro/index.htm
- COM (2003) “Wider Europe - Neighborhood: A New Framework for Relations with
our Eastern Neighbors”, Communication from the Commission to the European
Council
- European Commission (2003) “Country Strategy Paper 2003-2006: Georgia.”
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/georgia/csp/georgia_csp_6.pdf
83
- COM (2004) 373 final, European Neighborhood Policy Strategy Paper
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/strategy/strategy_paper_en.pdf
- European Commission (2004); “Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013: Georgia,
European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument”;
- COM (2004) 628 final 2004/0219 ENPI
- COM (2004) 795 final, communication from the Commission to the Council on the
Commission proposals for action plans under the European Neighborhood Policy
(ENP)
- COM (2005) 561, Communication from the Commission: 2005 Enlargement
Strategy Paper
- COM (2005) 72 final, communication from the Commission to the Council on the
“European Neighborhood Policy Recommendations for Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and for Egypt and Lebanon”.
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/enp_communication_72_2005_en.pdf
- COM (2005) 72 final, ENP Country Report Georgia
http://www.eu-integration.gov.ge/pdfs/georgia_cr_0503.pdf
- COM (2006) “Europe in the World - Some Practical Proposals for Greater
Coherence, Effectiveness and Visibility”; Communication from the Commission to
the European Council
- The European Commission and EU Secretary-General/High Representative (2006)
“An External Policy to Serve Europe’s Energy Interests,”
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/90082.
pdf
- COM (2007) “An energy policy for Europe” Communication from the Commission
to the European Council and the European Parliament http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0001:FIN:EN:HTML
The Council or Council of the European Union or the Council of Ministers (three
names for one institution)
- Common Strategy 2000/458/CFSP of the European Council of 19 June 2000 on the
Mediterranean region http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r15002.htm
84
The European Council or the European Summit (not an institution)
- The European Security Strategy (2003) the European Council, 15895/03
http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/140E90B3-E188-4E78-9C803BF32951BA0F/1836/europasegurapdf.pdf
- Treaty on the European Union, title V article 11. Official Journal C 325 of 24
December
2002
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002M/htm/12002M.html
- The European Council meeting in Cologne on 3 and 4 June 1999
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/kol1_en.htm
- The European Security Strategy, “A secure Europe in a better world - the European
Security Strategy” Approved by the European Council held in Brussels on 12
December 2003
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf
Interviews
Robert Liddell - First Counselor, Head of Economic, Political and Press Section;
Delegation of the European Commission to Georgia July 23, 2007
Dr. Archil M. Gegeshidze - A senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic
and International Studies (GFSIS). June 28, 2007
Amb. David Dondua - Director of the Political Department; Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Georgia; June 11, 2007
Alexander Maisuradze - Director of Department of Security Policy and Euro-Atlantic
Integration; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia; June 11, 2007
85
David Jalaghania - Director of the Department of European Integration; Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Georgia; August 1, 2007
Internet
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/ceeca/pca/index.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/world/enp/policy_en.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTC_Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
http://europa.eu/pol/cfsp/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r00001.htm
http://web.worldbank.org
http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/policybrief_georgia_sept05.pdf
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=14589
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=12481
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/90082.
pdf.
http://www.cpirs.org.ge/
http://www.delgeo.ec.europa.eu/en/index.html
http://www.enp.ge/?l=1&i=18
86
http://www.eu-integration.gov.ge/eng/
http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/energy-green-paper-new-revolution/article153104
http://www.euractiv.com/en/industry/geopolitics-eu-energy-supply/article-142665
http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=3802
http://www.geplac.org/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=50050
http://www.gfsis.org/pub/eng/
http://www.investingeorgia.org/
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/
http://www.mod.gov.ge/?l=E&m=1
http://www.president.gov.ge/?l=E&m=0&sm=3&st=30&id=2145
http://www.statistics.ge/index.php?plang=1
http://www.statistics.ge/printpublication.php?plang=1&pform=-999999
http://www.traceca-org.org/
http://www.un.int/azerbaijan/61%20Session%20Letters/17.pdf
87
Appendixes:
Appendix 1
Figure 1. Corruption as a problem for business, by country, 2002 and 2005
Figure 2. Bribe frequencies, by country, 2002 and 2005
88
Figure 3. Bribe tax by country, 2002 and 2005
Figure 4. Change in the impact of state capture, 2002-2005
89
Appendix 2
Map of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) and Baku-Supsa Pipelines
Source: EIA
Appendix 3
Map of Georgia and its neighbors
90
Appendix 4
EU Structure
EU
EC
European
Community
First pillar
(ECT)
Common
Foreign and
Security
Policy
Second pillar
(CFSP)
Police and
Judicial
Cooperation
in criminal
Matters
Third pillar
(title VI TEU)
91
Appendix 5
AA = Association Agreement, PCA = Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
EU relations with neighboring countries by the end of 2006
Source: Press release (2006) European Commission
92
Appendix 6
The European Neighborhood Policy by Regional Coverage
GEOGRAPHIC
COVERAGE
Eastern Europe
Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus
Southern Mediterranean
Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,
Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria,
Tunisia
Southern Caucasus
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
1. Strengthening stability, security and well-being for EU member states
and neighboring countries.
OBJECTIVES
2. Preventing the emergencies of new dividing lines between the enlarged
EU and its neighbors.
Source:
EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY: POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ISSUES
Fulvio Attinà and Rosa Rossi The Jean Monnet Centre “Euro-Med” Department of Political Studies
Catania, 2004
93
Appendix 7
A Chronology of ENP
Ø April 2002: The General Affairs Council (GAC) requests the
Commission and the High Representative for Common Foreign and
Security policy ‘to work up ideas on the EU’s relations with its
neighbors’.
Ø September 2002: The GAC initial outline, presented to an informal
meeting of foreign ministers, meets with a general lack of interest.
Ø December 2002: At academic conference, the Commission President
proposes ‘A Policy of Proximity’ arguing that the enlarged EU needed
‘a ring of friends’.
Ø December 2002: The Copenhagen European Council declares that The
Union remains determined to promote stability and prosperity within
and beyond the new borders of the Union.
Ø March 2003: European Commission publishes Communication 104:
Wider Europe— Neighborhood: A New Framework for Relations with
our Eastern and Southern Neighbors
Ø June 2003: The Council of Ministers declares the EU wishes to define
an ambitious new range of policies towards its neighbors
Ø July 2003: European Commission publishes Communication 393:
Paving the way for a New Neighborhood Instrument
Ø December 2003: The European Council adopts the “Solana document”
A Secure Europe in a Better World
Ø May 2004: The Commission presents Communication 373 European
Neighborhood Policy Strategy Paper
Source:
EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY: POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ISSUES
Fulvio Attinà and Rosa Rossi The Jean Monnet Centre “Euro-Med” Department of Political Studies
Catania, 2004
94
Appendix 8
Short Chronology of EU – Georgia Relations
1992
Ø
Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States
(TACIS) allocates its first funds to Georgia
1993
Ø
The EU launches Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia
(TRACECA)
The EU’s Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) starts operation in Georgia
1995
Ø
The EU launches the Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe
program
(INOGATE)
1996
Ø
22 April: The EU signs the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
(PCA) with Georgia
1999
Ø
1 July: the PCA with Georgia enters into force
2003
Ø
7 July: The EU appoints Finnish diplomat Ambassador Heikki Talvitie
as its Special Representative for the South Caucasus
Ø
23 September: The Country Strategy Paper 2003-2006 for Georgia is
adopted
Ø
2 December: Romano Prodi and Javier Solana meet with Nino
Burdzanadze, the interim President of Georgia
Ø
December: the EC allocates funds for Georgia’s presidential and
parliamentary elections from the Rapid Reaction Fund
2004
Ø
13 January: The National Indicative Programme 2004-2006 for Georgia
is signed
Ø
14-15 January: Javier Solana visits Georgia to congratulate President
Saakashvili on his election to presidency
Ø
6 April: President Saakshvili pays his first visit to the European
95
Commission where he meets President Prodi and Commissioner Patten
Ø
13 May: The Commission recommends the inclusion of Georgia, along
with Armenia and Azerbaijan, in the European Neighborhood Policy
Ø
14 June: The Council makes a decision to include Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Georgia in the ENP
Ø
16-17 June: The European Commission co-chairs a Donors Conference
for Georgia
Ø
5-6 July: Commissioner Janez Potoènik visits Georgia
Ø
16 July: The Council approves the “EUJUST THEMIS” Operation Plan
with the aim of deploying it in Georgia
Ø
22 July: The “EUJUST THEMIS” Rule of Law Mission to Georgia is
launched in Tbilisi, Georgia
Ø
17-19 September: Romano Prodi visits Georgia
2005
Ø
March: The Commission issues its comprehensive ENP Country Report
on Georgia
Ø
April: The EU sends the first three civilian experts of the EU Special
Representative’s Border Support Team to Georgia to observe the
situation
Ø
on the Georgian borders.
25-27 October: A team of EU troika visits Georgia before the
commencement of the ENP Action Plan negotiations
Ø
29-30 November: The first round of negotiations between the EU and
Georgian officials over the ENP Action Plan is held in Tbilisi, Georgia;
Ø
21 December: EU grants trade preferences under “GSP+” to Georgia
2006
Ø
20 February: The EU appoints Peter Semneby as a new EU Special
Representative for the South Caucasus with extended mandate
Ø
8 March: The second round of negotiations between the EU and
Georgian officials over the ENP Action Plan is held in Brussels
Ø
16 May: The third round of negotiations between the EU and Georgian
officials over the ENP Action Plan is held in Tbilisi, Georgia
Appendix 9
96
A Chronology of ENP - Georgia
Ø
June 2004: Georgia joined the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP).
The relevant decisions of the EU Council included recommendations of
the European Parliament, European Commission, those of the EU
Council Secretary General, the high representative of the Common
Foreign Security Policy and the special representative of the EU in the
South Caucasus on involvement of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia
into the ENP.
Ø July 2004: the Commission for Georgia's Integration into the EU was
established. Its purpose was to assist Georgia in the process of joining
the European Union, to coordinate the process of implementation of the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and to ensure Georgia's
effective participation in the European Neighborhood Policy.
Ø
November 2005: the first round of talks over the EU Neighborhood
Policy Action Plan was held.
Ø
March 2006: the second round of talks over the EU-Georgia Action Plan
within the European Neighborhood Policy was held on in Brussels
Ø
May 2006: the third round of talks over the elaboration of the EUGeorgia Action Plan within the European Neighborhood Policy was
held in Tbilisi.
Ø
October 2006: the Joint Statement on the agreed text of the ENP Action
Plan within the European Neighborhood Policy was signed between the
Troika and Georgia in Tbilisi.
Ø
November 2006: the 7
th
meeting of the EU-Georgian Cooperation
Council was held in Brussels. At the end of the meeting the EU-Georgia
Cooperation Council’s recommendations on the implementation of the
EU-Georgia
Action
Plan
in
the
framework
of
the
European
Neighborhood Policy was signed.
Ø January 2007: the EU fact-finding mission visited Georgia. The aim of
the mission was to examine the possibilities of implementing the EUGeorgia ENP Action Plan in the conflict zones of Georgia, including
issues of border control and confidence building between the
conflicting sides, as well as the ways of EU participation in peaceful
resolution of the conflicts on the territory of Georgia.
Source: http://www.mfa.gov.ge
97
Appendix 10
Assistance to be provided to Georgia within the framework of ENP 2007-2013
Source: European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument Georgia.
National Indicative Program, 2007-2013
Appendix 11
Georgia’s other expectation from ENP process:
Establishment of independent judiciary, based on the implementation of the
reform strategy for the criminal justice
Strengthening border monitoring capacity and intensifying co-operation with
the EU on border protection issues, including increasing administrative and
technical capacity, equipping and training of border guards;
EU to encourage Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia to negotiate agreements
with Georgia on border delimitation;
Simplification of visa procedures for Georgian citizens traveling to the EU
member states;
Simplification of the regulations for workers to migrate to the EU member
states;
Establishment of preconditions for realization of the Four Freedoms;
98
Enhancing EU-Georgia cooperation on CFSP starting with inviting Georgia,
on a case by case basis, to align with EU positions on regional and
international issues;
Start consultations on Free Trade Agreement; Increase the share of
investment component in the future aid;
Appendix 12
Interview Questionnaires
Robert Liddell - First Counselor, Head of Economic, Political and Press Section;
Delegation of the European Commission to Georgia July 23, 2007
1. In most of the articles and research papers European Neighborhood Policy in
relation of Georgia is discussed from regional point of view. Does it mean that
European Union’s growing interest derives from South Caucasus Region, and not
necessarily towards Georgia itself?
2. Georgia has finally negotiated a Neighborhood Policy Action Plan with the EU. Is
it possible to make some remarks about Action Plan implementation process at this
moment in Georgia?
3. Integration into the European Union is one of the main agenda of National
Security Concept of Georgia: What is the specific role of the EU for this moment as a
security actor in Georgia and can European Neighborhood Policy be perceived as a
guarantee in the matters of security for Georgia?
4. Can the process of Europeanization be used as an alternative mechanism to the
settling of indigenous conflicts?
5. What are current priorities of the European Commission in Georgia?
6. How far this work under the Neighborhood Policy can take Georgia? Can Georgia
see itself one day as a member of the European Union, bearing in mind that ENP does
not work that way?
7. What is the EU’s reaction to Georgia’s demands for clear EU political support for
its sovereignty and independence and a change in the negotiating format for conflict
resolution?
99
8. What are the EU’s interests in the South Caucasus Region? Do they match with the
expectations of the South Caucasus countries?
Dr. Archil M. Gegeshidze - A senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation for
Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS). June 28, 2007
1. Integration into the European Union is one of the main agenda of National Security
Concept of Georgia: What is the specific role of the EU for this moment as a security
actor in Georgia?
2. Can European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) be perceived as a guarantee in the
matters of security for Georgia?
3. In most of the legal documents Georgia’s inclusion in ENP is discussed from
regional point of view. Does it mean that European Union’s growing interest derives
from South Caucasus Region, and not necessarily towards Georgia itself?
4. Georgia has negotiated a Neighborhood Policy Action Plan with the EU. What
does this mean in practice? Can we describe Action Plan as limits and guiding
principals of EU actions towards Georgia?
5. What is the actual difference between Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
(PCA) and ENP from policy perspective?
6. What was the most important issue during negotiating the Action Plan from
Georgia’s point of view?
7. Can we describe outcomes from being ENP participant country from security point
of view?
8. Does Georgia see itself one day as a member of the European Union, bearing in
mind that ENP does not work that way?
9. On what conditions will the EU become a full foreign and security policy actor in
Georgia?
10. Does the document about European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply
spell out clearly the EU’s interest in the energy resources of the Caspian basin and the
South Caucasus energy corridor? How has the EU policy towards Georgia changed
since decisions were made to build the Baku- Supsa and Baku-Ceyhan oil pipelines
and the Baku-Erzerum gas pipeline?
100
11. What is on the agenda of cooperation between the EU and Georgia in the energy
sphere? What is Georgias position and future plans?
Amb. David Dondua - Director of the Political Department; Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Georgia; June 11, 2007
1. Can you describe limits and principles, guiding EU actions in Georgia where EU
can upgrade its political role in Georgia?
2. To what extent do the European Neighborhood Policy's (ENP) objectives and
instruments comply with Georgia's needs for modernization and democratic
transition?
3. Georgia has negotiated a Neighborhood Policy Action Plan with the EU and
frequently proclaims its desire for integration with Europe. What does this mean in
practice? Does Georgia see itself one day as a member of the European Union,
bearing in mind all the problems of resistance to further expansion within the EU?
4. Can ENP be perceived as a guarantee in the matters of security for Georgia?
5. How far this work together under the Neighborhood Policy can take us?
6. Is ENP the way of EU's increased foreign policy capacity in Georgia?
7. Can we already see some outcomes from being ENP participant country?
David Jalaghania - Director of the Department of European Integration; Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Georgia; August 1, 2007
1. To what extent do the European Neighborhood Policy's (ENP) objectives and
instruments comply with Georgia's needs for modernization and democratic
transition?
2. Can you describe limits and principles, guiding EU actions in Georgia where EU
can upgrade its political role in Georgia?
3. What is the actual difference between Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
(PCA) and ENP from policy perspective?
4. Can ENP be perceived as a guarantee in the matters of security for Georgia?
5. What additional incentives could be offered so that the sustainability of Georgia's
reforms is ensured?
101
6. Georgia has negotiated a Neighborhood Policy Action Plan with the EU and
frequently proclaims its desire for integration with Europe. What does this mean in
practice? Does Georgia see itself one day as a member of the European Union,
bearing in mind all the problems of resistance to further expansion within the EU?
7. What was the most important issue during negotiating the Action Plan from
Georgia’s point of view?
8. How far this work together under the Neighborhood Policy can take us?
Alexander Maisuradze - Director of Department of Security Policy and EuroAtlantic Integration; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia; June 11, 2007
1. Integration into the European Union is one of the main agenda of National Security
Concept of Georgia: What is the role of the EU as an emerging security actor in
Georgia? How can the EU work and support other security institutions, such as the
OSCE, which are present in the region?
2. Can European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) be perceived as a guarantee in the
matters of security for Georgia?
3. What are the main security objectives under the ENPAP for Georgia? How can
you evaluate the ENPAP implementation process today?
4. On what conditions will the EU become a full foreign and security policy actor in
Georgia?
102