Eastbook – blog on EU Eastern Partnership

[Interview] Katarzyna Pisarska, PhD, Summarises the Polish Presidency

Paweł Lickiewicz @ 19:32, 13.01.2012

“The fact that the Eastern Partnership was included on the European agenda and was discussed even during the eurozone crisis can be regarded a success”. The interview with Katarzyna Pisarska, PhD, Director of the European Academy of Diplomacy. 

Katarzyna Pisarska during workshops at European Academy of Diplomacy, November 2011, source: diplomats.pl

Paweł Lickiewicz: The Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union has ended. The time of summarizing has come. After the Treaty of Lisbon, the presidency lost its significance. Did Poland, despite this loss, manage to deal with the tasks and challenges of the Presidency? 

Katarzyna Pisarska: Obviously, Polish Presidency after the Lisbon Treaty is a presidency different from those preceding the Treaty. Today, presidency is more of administrative and logistic work, though in this field one might achieve success as well as fail. In the organisation sphere, Poland has got good marks. The administration was well-prepared for mediating in the working groups of the Council of the EU. There were many intra-EU meetings held in Poland, for example, those of the ministers of environment and health, or the Eastern Partnership Summit. The Summit itself struck us after Hungarian Presidency – there were only a few months to prepare it and Poland managed nicely. The appraisal of the Polish Presidency should be high when it comes to the aforementioned fields.

PL: What about the appraisal of the political aspect?

KP: It’s an entirely different issue. In this field, we must acknowledge the limited role of presidency as a form of influencing the Union’s agenda. The Union’s face did not belong Donald Tusk or Radoslaw Sikorski but to the President of the European Council Herman Von Rompouy and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Catherine Ashton. On the one hand, this gives the EU’s institutions an opportunity for keeping fluidity of actions. On the other hand, it decreases the significance of the states and Poland couldn’t have counted on being visible as a country.

PL: Was the Eastern Partnership (EaP) noticed during the Polish Presidency? 

KP: Much good was done on the subject of the Eastern Partnership. Taking into consideration that we’ve just witnessed the Arab Spring and that the whole Union is focused on the euro crisis, the fact that we’ve managed to organise the Eastern Partnership Summit and implement numerous new projects within the programme is a good sign for this Polish initiative.

PL: Then, despite Polish absence in the foreground, we’ve managed to put on the agenda one of the priorities of the Polish Presidency called “Europe benefiting from openness” and the Eastern Partnership as well?

KP: Yes, “Europe benefiting from openness” was this priority subject, within the framework of which we held talks about visa facilitations for our eastern neighbours. We have also discussed education programmes, e.g. expansion of the Erasmus programme to such countries as Ukraine, and Russia in the future. Another issue was establishing a large fund allowing for educational exchanges between the Eastern Partnership states and the European Union. Works on founding the European Fund for Democracy have started. The Fund will be an important tool for financing non-governmental organisations from the EaP states among others. A few more ideas have been presented. Obviously, they couldn’t have been realised within six months, but they will be discussed.

Poland-Ukraine border, luggage inspection, author: Paweł Lickiewicz, source: Eastbook

PL: You’ve mentioned visa abolition. Can any quick changes be expected in this matter? 

KP: The talks with the representatives of the European Commission abate the zeal. Visa liberation for the East may not take place within the next two or four years, but rather within a decade. Everything depends on the political and economic development of these countries. We’ve been the members of the Schengen area since 2007 and have travelled without a visa since the ’90s. We tend to forget that the majority of countries still have visa-entries. A visa is issued to authorise a person to enter the territory of the country for which it was issued. In case of the EU states, it is even more – an authorisation to enter the Schengen area. Protection of its borders brings great responsibility and visas are to regulate legal immigration. The less stable the situation in the EaP countries, the more likely the influx of immigrants and the more likely there won’t be any visa liberalisation in the relations between these countries and the EU. Unfortunately, the six-month Polish Presidency didn’t bring significant political changes, neither in Belarus, nor in Ukraine or the South Caucasus. It isn’t of course the Presidency’s fault.

PL: What are the chances that after the end of the Polish Presidency and the beginning of the Danish and Cypriot Presidencies, the Eastern Partnership will be included on the European agenda? 

KP: All the three countries (Poland, Denmark, Cyprus) cooperated while giving priorities to different matters of the presidencies. It was agreed that the most important issues, including the Eastern Partnership, will be taken care of by all the three states. Denmark inherits the open subject of signing the Association Agreement with Ukraine as well as an unstable situation in Belarus, worsening not only at the economic level, but also in the political sphere. Furthermore, during the Danish Presidency, presidential elections will be held in Russia. In the face of the current protests in Moscow and Petersburg, it might be a turbulent year for Russia. The elements of eastern policy, including the EaP, will be visible during the Danish Presidency, regardless of the willingness and attitude of the authorities of Denmark. My discussion with the Embassy of Denmark indicated that the country is very much dedicated to the Eastern Partnership initiative. What’s even more important, the Embassy and the Foreign Ministry held talks about the elements of the EaP that should be given priority. Thus, the fluidity of actions of presidency is kept. However, it should be emphasised that the main institution responsible for the Eastern Partnership’s future is the European Commission. It is the Commission that can propose some actions concerning the development of the initiative, and the Commission that can order to abandon them. It all depends on the political situation – both in the Union and in the EaP countries. Without the interest and dedication of both parties, the initiative will be frozen.

Conference on the Southern Neighbourhood, Warsaw 2011, author: Paweł Lickiewicz, source: Eastbook.eu

PL: The European Commission has also to deal with the rivalry inside the European Neighbourhood Policy between the East and South, which fight for attention, interest and, eventually, for money. Is there a way out of this situation? 

KP: This may sound slightly perverse but the Arab Spring really helps us to push through the priorities of the EaP. Why? Because for the first time there’s a consensus in the EU when it comes to the need of democratisation and support of transformation of these countries towards a democratic system. The European Fund for Democracy was established, the objective of which is to support democratic processes in the South and East. The Instrument for Civil Society Support was founded – another tool for aiding the key concept of democracy: civil society. It’s a realisation of our eastern policy, for which civil society is of utmost importance. The Arab Spring made our argumentation understandable in the West and this lead to decisions on allotting more funds to democratisation. I wouldn’t worry about the funds. Not because gentlemen do not discuss money. I think that we’ll soon observe a tendency for growth of financing the European Neighbourhood Policy. This can assume a form of creating smaller instruments financed by third countries, not only the EU members. Talks are being held within the group of the Friends of the Eastern Partnership – with the US, Japan and Canada about their participation and contribution within different initiatives of the EaP. We already have the example of the US, which financially participate in one of the EaP projects called Eastern European Energy Efficiency and Environment Partnership. The fund for SME support is financed by the European Investment Fund – not all the money comes from the budget of the European Union.

PL: You have said that the Danish Presidency would inherit the talks on signing the Association Agreement. At the EU-Ukraine Summit in Kyiv, the end of the negotiations was announced. Will the agreement ever be signed? 

The meeting of President Bronislaw Komorowski and President Viktor Yanukovych, author: Anna Woźniak, source: flickr.com

KP: After years of negotiations, if both sides sit down to talks, they will try to complete the agreement. The European Union will press for the release of Yulia Tymoshenko and depoliticisation of her trial. For Yanukovych, this will be difficult to accept, taking into consideration the personal nature of the case. On the other hand, it’s a tasty political morsel for the President of Ukraine. With the large support for the Union in Ukraine, signing this agreement could be announced a great success of the Kyiv authorities. No one knows what Yanukovych will do. Both Brussels and Warsaw are trying to figure it out. But if Yanukovych sits down to talks, the solution will probably at least partly satisfy the Union and allow Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement.

PL: Signing the Association Agreement is not enough. It has to be ratified. Is there a chance for 27 countries ratifying the Agreement? 

KP: It shouldn’t be a problem. The only thing is the potential opposition, especially because the ratification will be simplified, without the referendum. However, the crisis in eurozone slows down all decision processes in the member states. In my opinion, if the Association Agreement is signed, it will also be ratified.  Not within a month, but maybe within a year.

PL: So there is no such danger then that it will be another defunct document between Brussels and Kyiv? 

KP: That’s absolutely impossible. On the EU’s side there shouldn’t be any problems. Bear in mind that the EU has already signed between ten and fifteen binding Association Agreements. It’s not a new procedure. And it’s not as serious as changing the Treaty, which requires enormous involvement of societies and politicians as well as ratification based on referendum. Procedure-wise, it’s quite a simple case for the majority of member states, requiring the consent of the European Parliament. There were some problems with Ukraine concerning the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). It didn’t regard, however, the stage of ratification, but implementation. PCA, like the Association Agreement, included many elements which Ukraine was to incorporate into its legislation, but at the end did not. This is the real challenge for the Association Agreement – to implement, not to ratify.

PL: Will the Eastern Partnership’s credibility suffer, if the Association Agreement is not signed? 

KP: The Eastern Partnership doesn’t depend on the Association Agreement with Ukraine. The EaP is an initiative reaching further ahead and a broader idea of integration of the six countries bordering the Union. The agreement negotiations had been held long before the EaP was launched. Within the EaP the Union has to find a tool that will allow these six countries to benefit from the integration into the EU and will encourage them to introduce reforms in the future.

PL: Before the beginning of the Polish Presidency, it was said that it would be concluded with signing the EU-Ukraine Agreement. It was to have been a measure of our success. Does Polish government have anything that can substitute the success that did not come? 

KP: The Polish government speaks of the success of the EaP Summit and effective inclusion of the European aspirations of the partner countries in the conclusions from the event. It’s hard to speak of great achievements of the Presidency. Poland tried to be a facilitator of the Association Agreement negotiations, but if there’s no will on the partner’s side and there are serious reservations when it comes to the political situation of the country, no presidency can help. A question needs to be asked: would any other presidency, Swedish or Lithuanian, achieve greater success under these circumstances?

PL: Would it? 

KP: I don’t think so. I think that Poland didn’t make any omissions in this matter, it didn’t miss its chances. It definitely tried to push the processes ahead for these last six months. The whole attention of the Union is now focused on the crisis of the eurozone and fear that it will dissolve, which would mean tremendous chaos and costs we would all incur. The fact that the Eastern Partnership has become known in Europe and that it has been frequently discussed should be regarded a success.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Katarzyna Pisarska, PhD: Director of the European Academy of Diplomacy. An associate professor at Warsaw School of Economics in Warsaw and Associate Scholar at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington DC, USA.  She serves as a PA to British historian, professor Norman Davies.

Translated by Marta Lityńska

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• Dodaj do sieci socjalnych