“…But Eurovision 2012 was by no means the only time the question had arisen: should international sporting and entertainment events be held in non-democratic countries? Other notable examples of controversial events include last month’s Formula One Grand Prix race in Bahrain, the Euro 2012 football tournament in Ukraine and various Olympic Games“.

Baku residents say Eurovision has led to evictions:

You can find the first part of the interview here

Jerzy Pomianowski at the premiere of the film “Zhyve Belarus!”, source: twitter.com

Artur Kacprzak: What type of projects will be considered as the priority?

Jerzy Pomianowski: First comes financing unregistered groups. Interim financing will help social groups to become stronger, to define their goals, to develop a program and an action plan – to construct projects which would be funded later from other sources. This consolidation of political and social activity will become our priority. Of course, the focus will be also on a variety of innovative, unusual mechanisms helping in consolidation of democracy or boosting the energy of social society. Even today, we see how important it is. This is the democracy being born within the Internet, where large reserves of social energy face difficulties in moving from the virtual into the reality. Sometimes,  while moving from Facebook to the real life, the leaders who have created them online, are changed. We often have to deal with partners who do want to work just online – they do not want to meet with their bloggers, or Facebook fans. However, if they liked to do that, the EED would help them.

AK: What are the geographical criteria of the EED?

JP: The programme covers countries defined by the EU policy as countries of the European neighborhood.

AK: Dos it mean that South America and Asia would not be included?

JP: Not yet. In the future, after discussions, the Board of Governors might make another decision. It is not prohibited to expand the range of activities, but for today the list of countries is closed.

AK: Does the EED now have a kind of probationary period?

JP: Probation is a big word. It’s just a new institution, just starting, and everything should be tested. It will be also a test for the EU member states: will they give the Secretariat enough power to operate freely or will they interfere, controlling every single detail? There is the promise of “light”, non-bureaucratic formula for functioning and we will see if it will be used.

AK: If I understand you correctly, your concerns are much more about the participation of the EU partners than the organisation’s resources, goals or way of functioning?

JP: Of course I’m concerned about the effectiveness of governing and management, but also about too little involvement, ie the lack of interest as well as excessive engagement. The golden mean is somewhere between these states – it is important to determine priorities and wisely allocate the budget, but, at the same time, there is no reason to bring up every single grant decision under discussion within a multicultural group whose members usually have a lot of other things to think about. I want to turn the independence of the EED into a real value.

AK: How much money is in the common fund right now?

JP: At the moment we are talking about 25 million euros.

AK: Together with the startup money from the Commission?

JP: Yes.

AK: And later?

JP: It’s hard to say, for it is still an open question. We assume that after some positive changes in the funding structure of the various European instruments, the EED will also be able to take over the role of a fund manager. It means that the organisation does not have money in its own budget, but is able to effectively handle the funds – we can prepare projects, we can combine them into larger ones, and also integrate projects funded by the Commission and bilateral donors. Our operating model does not necessarily mean that we must have our own money.

AK: During conversations with a colleague from the Czech Republic, I heard that the Polish diplomacy has tripped up the Czech idea of ​​European Partnership for Democracy (EPD), while advocating their own ideas. I would like to ask, on behalf of my colleague, how the concept has been changed, since the purpose of both institutions was the same but the Czech model was not supported in the countries of the region. Why did it fail and the EED prevailed?

JP: Let’s not waste our time on criticism. I just want to say that we, Krzysztof Stanowski and I, have carefully examined the case of the EPD and our success was partly the result of the lesson we learned thanks to the Czech project.

AK: The principal EU partners have taken the wait-and-see approach. What kind of success should the EED make to persuade them to fully support you?

JP: The most hoped-for – and the biggest – partner who ought to apply is Germany. Yet, at the same time, we understand that all the major partners are those who pay much into the EU budget. In this regard, they may have some questions about the competences and responsibilities: “It’s your – the new EU members’ – turn to play an important role, not only politically, but also as managers of an organisation and its finances while implementing one of the EU objectives: to support the democratic processes in our neighbourhood“. It could be the explanation but not the reason for further hesitation.

There is no doubt that the financial crisis and, therefore, fiscal austerity in many countries restrict the generosity. In spite of them, in the case of Germany it is seemingly only a matter of time. Though with France, Italy and the UK, it can be a longer process.

AK: And the process depends on…?

JP: It’s hard to say. In the case of France, we have got a statement that perhaps they will not pay the money directly but just pass some of their own programs to us. So there are some alternative ideas. The same goal can be achieved in various ways, either through direct funding or specifying who should pay.

AK: When will the call for applications be announced?

JP: There will be no deadlines. We will consider applications for financial assistance on an on-going basis. This is one of our innovative elements. Once upon a time such formulae existed so why shouldn’t we return to forgotten mechanisms which – for reasons e are perfectly aware of – have been eliminated. Today, however, the lack of a wider range of different mechanisms starts to be a problem.

AK: Are there any specific results you would like to see after the first year?

JP: The vision we present is an interim mechanism. For me, the success of the EED will be measured by the fact that a number of individuals or groups will receive a permanent, long-term source of funding from the European Union or European donors. They will have better conditions for functioning and have more courage to undertake various initiatives in their countries – the process of their identification will be much faster and more accurate with the EED funding. If we achieve this effect in two or three years, I will say “we have succeeded”. However, I am far from building optimistic  scenarios when we are talking about a better democratic system created in two or three years. The EED will not radically change the political reality in these countries, and, that’s for sure, will not resolve problems and replace the actual and historical transformation process that must take place. The EED is just one of many tools that are the answer to some basic requirements  declared within the major European postulate: we cannot allow leave the people who want to fight for democratic values in our neighbourhood alone, without any opportunity to succeed  Will their struggle be a victorious one? Will they receive a majority vote in their countries or build a stable democracy? The EED cannot answer these questions. It is their own battle.

AK: Thank you for the interview.

JP: Thank you.

Read the first part of the interview

Translated by MA

The Turning Torso, Malmö, Sweden. author: mescon. source: Flickr

Sweden’s stint as host as not been without controversy, however, with the communications giant TeliaSonera acting as the event’s main sponsor. TeliaSonera caught international attention last year when it was accused of paying hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to Gulnara Karimova, the daughter of Uzbekistan‘s president, in order to gain access to that Central Asian country’s massive mobile-phone market. This move angered human rights activists, especially after hopes that Sweden would use the opportunity to promote human rights, after previous host Azerbaijan caused outcry for its oppressive crackdowns during the contest.

'TeliaSonera is an unethical company nowadays. They're still cooperating with regimes in the oppression of people.' http://t.co/ndHVonmbu5

17.05.2013 13:55 via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

@cjcmichel

Casey Michel

TeliaSonera, which is now facing years of investigation and potential criminal charges, has attempted to improve its image. The company’s CEO, Lars Nyberg  has already vacated his post, along with a number of board members. The company has also signed on to new industry principles on freedom of expression and privacy.

Amidst potential scandal, the final Eurovision lineup for this year has today been released, and is as follows:

1. France

2. Lithuania

3. Moldova

4. Finland

5. Spain

6. Belgium

7. Estonia

8. Belarus

9. Malta

10. Russia

11. Germany

12. Armenia

13. The Netherlands

14. Romania

15. United Kingdom

16. Sweden

17. Hungary

18. Denmark

19. Iceland

20. Azerbaijan

21. Greece

22. Ukraine

23. Italy

24. Norway

25. Georgia

26. Ireland

Watch a recap of the original 39 contestants:

And you can watch the Finals here…

Read also on RFERL:  Songs About Greek Crisis, Gay Marriage Reach Eurovision Final

sources: RFE/RL

The rally and the counter-rally

The LGBT activists were not allowed to organise a rally against homophobia on May 17, the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia. Rustaveli Avenue in Tbilisi, where the demonstration was planned to be held, was occupied by clergymen and the members of Georgian Orthodox Church (to which over 80% of Georgians belong) who promised not to let gay activists gather in the center of Tbilisi.

Police failed to separate anti-homophobia activists from the demonstrators, simply gathering the LGBT activists, putting them into city buses and evacuating outside Tbilisi before the planned demonstration.

Up to twenty people, journalists and policemen among them, were hurt as some LGBT activists remained in the center of Tbilisi. People on the other side, chasing LGBT activists, damaged municipal transport and city shops. They made aggressive remarks against gay people, gay activists and number of local civil society organizations that supported the rally. There were many young people among them, some probably even school-age.

Such conduct has been encouraged by many clergymen in Georgia who called on the members of their congregations to fight homosexuals. Some directly promoted violence in the heat of the moment when the two groups met.

“I will kill you all,” – shouted a priest, running against the demonstrators, cursing.

After the gay activists were gone, some people remained in the center of the city, others went to pray and celebrate in the churches.

Georgian public is divided whether today Georgians should celebrate or be ashamed.

Photo gallery by Levan Verdzeuli

Preparations

Rally against homophobia has been at the center of public attention for weeks. Clergymen and more conservative civil society activities vowed that such rallies are unacceptable and planned counter-demonstrations.

Georgian Patriarch Illia II asked the Tbilisi City Hall to withdraw its permission on the rally. Tbilisi City Hall responded that there is no permission required as the citizens of Georgia can gather and protest without state permission, they only notify the authorities. The announcement of the Patriarch angered the liberal part of the Georgian public not only because it revealed a rather shallow knowledge of Georgian legislation among the church authorities, but also because it said that “homosexuality is an abnormality and all religions and science (medicine, psychology) agree on this.”  Anti-homosexual remarks have become typical for the Orthodox Church.

On the night of May 16, priests and their supporters gathered in front of former Parliament building on Rustaveli Avenue and spent the night there.

In the morning of May 17, Rustaveli Avenue was full of police and anti-LGBT protesters. Some groups marched shouting “Georgia,” others walked down the street praying. Many were in national outfits and patriotic songs were on.

A small group of people led by Basil Mkalavishvili, an assailant ex-priest who served a prison term for committing violence against religious minorities, came on the demonstration holding bunches of nettles, saying they will fight gay people.

Photo report by radio Liberty:

Public Opinion

The Georgian public is divided on the issue of homosexuality, but anti-homosexual attitudes prevail. Some Georgians tend to think that “such things” are not for “Georgian men” and “such people (homosexuals)” can go to Europe and America, where “these things” are accepted.  Homosexuality is often perceived as “unnatural”, “against God” and something that will make Georgian nation “extinct.”

Others say they can do whatever they want in their homes but bringing their sexuality to public is “seductive” and unacceptable. They demand to ban “propaganda of seduction”.

Then there are those who believe in equality of all, regardless oftheir sexual orientation.

There is no extensive research on public attitudes towards homosexuality in Georgia. A recent research carried out by local LGBT organizations, shows that most homosexuals in the country are victims of pressure and violence.

What do Authorities do?

The Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili said the day before that the rights of homosexual people will be defended by the police. The Chairman of the Parliament Davit Usupashvili stated his support for the rights of minorities.

Previous government led by President Mikheil Saakshvili was thought to be composed of liberal-minded individuals and western-educated reformers. In general, they supported gay rights but did not always dare to have a firm stand on the rights of homosexual people – confront the church and the people.

Last year on May 17, police also failed to guarantee the security of LGBT activists.

Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is often accused by his opponent to be driving Georgia back into the past, seems to have a clear position on the rights of sexual minorities. However, the police has not yet taken the responsibility for the failure of the rally, saying the authorities did what they could. So far, not all the members of the current government, which is a set of various kinds of people, are fierce defenders of homosexual rights.

Feature photo: http://bit.ly/11KeHLX

In Krakow. author: Mr Thomas Piskortz. source: Flickr

The representatives will meet primarily to discuss  the Eastern Partnership and its November summit in Vilnius, as well as a the situations of the individual partner countries and on the EaP’s future after the Vilnius meeting.

There are high hopes for the upcoming Vilnius summit, in particular the opportunity it presents for Ukraine to sign the proposed Association Agreement with the EU. The likelihood of signing the agreement remains uncertain as Ukraine must demonstrate visible progress in three areas of reform demanded by the EU. The association agreement was initialled more than a year ago, but its signature is conditional on these three key issues which include selective justice, shortcomings of the October elections, and the release from prison of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Initially, the Ukraine was given until May 2013 to adequately demonstrate its commitment to these reforms–however, with the deadline come and gone, incoming EU Presidency holder Lithuania has this week granted Ukraine extra time. According to the Lithuanian foreign minister Linas Linkevičius, Ukraine now has six months to meet EU terms for signing the association agreement, saying:

 “We will keep this pressure until the last moment … If they will be ready, we will be ready and we hope, we still believe, that it’s doable to sign the association agreement by the summit in Vilnius.We have plenty of time. We will be ready to catch up if they will be ready.”

This concession, however, was not supported by all EU members. In fact, not all members agreed to the three reforms demanded of Ukraine, with some countries willing to overlook the release of Tymoshenko, arguing that the Union should not lose Ukraine over the fate of one person. However, Germany has made it clear that an association agreement is entirely contingent on the release of Tymoshenko.

#EC completes technical steps to allow signing #AssocAgreement w/#Ukraine in Vilnius once Kyiv delivers on conditions http://t.co/3LaywijO1c

15.05.2013 09:31 via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@StefanFuleEU

Štefan Füle

sources: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland, EurActiv

Yerevan Markets, Armenia. Cognac barrels at Yerevan Market. author Arthur Chapman. source Flickr

On 13 May Alexander Lukashenko held talks with his Armenian counterpart President Serzh Sargsyan in Yerevan. At the negotiations the presidents discussed bilateral relations and agreed to promote cooperation in various industries. Special attention was paid to the development of greater economic ties and bilateral trade–particularly cooperation in agriculture and the nuclear sector–with both parties signing an intergovernmental agreement on sharing information and cooperation in nuclear safety and radiation protection.

The Belarusian head of state spoke about his country’s particular interest in Armenia’s experience in the nuclear energy sphere. Lukashenko explained that as Belarus is building its first nuclear power plant it would be beneficial to exchange information and expertise with Armenia on nuclear safety and approaches to their construction.

In light of Lukashenko’s remarks, it is perhaps important to note that in spite of its nuclear-knowledge, Armenia is also considered home of the world’s most dangerous power plant, Metsamor, which is one of 5 remaining water-moderated Soviet-era plants. It also sits in a zone of high seismic activity – in fact, it rests upon some of the Earth’s most earthquake-prone terrain. It has been referred to as Armenia’s “time bomb“.

Another regional time bomb has come back into the spotlight this week–as Azerbaijan has reportedly started military exercises near its mainly Armenian-populated breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Defense Ministry announced  that Minister Safar Abiyev was personally leading the manoeuvres, with Azerbaijan’s land and air forces both taking part in the exercises.

The activity comes on the heels of a statement made last week by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said publicly that his country wanted to restore its territorial integrity and resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in accordance with international law.

Meanwhile Armenia’s permanent representative to OSCE Arman Kirakosyan urged Azerbaijan to refrain from militaristic statements and actions and stressed that the escalating tensions in conflict zone were unacceptable. His comments were underlined by Armenian psychologist and military expert David Jamalyan, who explained that Azerbaijan has recently been demonstrating bigger trends aimed at defending territorial integrity and, in Jamalyan’s opinion, it does not appear as though a peaceful resolution between the two countries will be realized in the near future:

“Domestic tensions in Azerbaijan theoretically can trigger a new war, however, potentially, the first ever failure in the battlefield would further aggravate the situation. We are condemned to living and developing under ceasefire. We have no right to deceive ourselves, ceasefire is what we’ll have in our foreseeable future. And in making peace last we can depend only upon our own strength – the armed forces of Armenia are the most reliable to us,”  he said.

In spite of this, there is hope that there are other possible paths to acceptance. In a seemingly unrelated event, Russian President Vladimir Putin presented to British Prime Minister David Cameron the gift of a bottle of 42 year old Armenian cognac. Putin explained that Joseph Stalin had given Winston Churchill a similar cognac at the Yalta conference in 1945. The gesture sparked various news stories across the region, with Russian radio and TV presenter,Viktor Shenderovich, sharing an interesting fact: Previous Azerbaijani leader Heydar Aliyev refused to drink Azerbaijani brandy, secretly preferring (and reportedly insisting upon) an Armenian one. Thus showing that apart from peace talks and diplomacy–there are other ties that bind.

Cognac is currently Armenia’s second largest export, and a huge source of income for the Caucasian country. Yerevan and Brussels are now in the process of  negotiating the terms of a Free and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), which is part and parcel of a larger plan of cooperation and integration between the EU and Armenia. However, negotiations maybe have reached a hiccup (pun intended) on the subject of Cognac exports. Yerevan is asking that the EU allow it to continue marketing its brandy as “cognac”, while EU law stipulates that the name “cognac” can only be used for brandies that come from the French region of the same name. Armenia has argued that this could have detrimental implications on the Armenian side. Negotiations continue.

Pro-govt #Azerbaijan youth group #Ireli is pretending to have political debates. Note this map eliminated #Armenia > https://t.co/4HlesdN247

15.05.2013 16:40 via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@GoldenTent

Ani Wandaryan

sources: ArmenPress, Armenia Now, RFE/RL

Belarus & the EU, author: banecki, source: Flickr

Is it only the fault of Belarusians?

There is a widely spread assumption that true reasons behind these constant failures are caused by internal factors in Belarus, preventing most of these initiatives on behalf of the EU from fostering any kind of improvements and changes. Indeed, if one would try to explain it solely by looking for reasons among Belarusian problems, he would find plenty of them. Belarus is rich in all sorts of problems and usually some of these problems are used as explanations and reasons behind nineteen years of one complete failure. There is a lot of criticism when it comes to Belarus’ lack of aspirations for Democracy and European values and there is almost none, which concerns the EU’s and the US’s strategy failure toward Belarus. Few criticize the Western world for these failures, lack of a common strategy and real commitment to it. When nothing works out, Belarusians are automatically blamed for their own problems and lack of efforts on their side. Of course, Belarusians are the guilty ones in the first place. This is first of all their own responsibility to deal with internal political issues of their country. Who else except for them is supposed to solve their own problems?

What is the European Union missing when it comes to Belarus?

What the EU is really missing when it comes to the Belarusian case is that the problem is much deeper than that of other Central and Eastern European states. One should be aware of Belarus’ tragic history and all the consequences arising from it, starting from the year 1795. Today’s Belarus is a highly denationalized, sovietized and Russified country. It totally lacks its European identity, which was roughly wiped out by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for over two hundred of years. One should understand that today Belarusians found themselves lost as a nation, forced to become Russians and forbidden to be Belarusians. They were deprived of everything authentic and national. As a result, they became something in between, neither Belarusians nor Russians. One could easily say that Belarusians are represented by lost generations, which went through the most severe totalitarian regimes in the history of mankind.

The EU misunderstands how it should democratize Belarus because it does not attempt to get into the shoes of a regular Belarusian, his or hers situation and daily problems. It does not look at the situation from this kind of a perspective. However, if it did, it would see that the situation in which Belarusians found themselves, due to many historical factors, and of course, their own mistakes is much more serious and difficult to resolve, than it was previously thought. The EU would see that even though we live in the 21st century and Belarus is located in the very heart of Europe, the Belarusian people found themselves completely isolated from Europe and the Western world, both physically and mentally. The door to Europe was always closed to contemporary Belarusians for the whole duration of their lives.

Russia is not willing to lose Belarus to Europe

When one deals with Belarus, he has to take into account a decisive presence of Russia in the region, which never stopped holding its iron grip on Belarus. It continues to do so up to this very moment. Nothing has changed in Russia’s foreign policy toward Belarus. It continues its historical colonial rule. It does whatever is needed and possible in order to keep Belarus under its tight control. The anti-national and pro-Russian regime of Lukashenka is supported first of all by Russia in both political and economic sense. It does everything possible to preserve the following state of things and even more, today it attempts to integrate Belarus into the Russian Federation as deep as it is possible, approaching it very decisively. One has to admit that it is quite successful in doing so. Thus, the door is intentionally kept open only in one direction – Russia. Belarusians are neither required to obtain a visa nor need to take care of any formalities when it comes to traveling, working or moving to Russia. Even more, their rights are very much equalized with those possessed by Russian citizens, except for voting rights. Only these facts alone illustrate how serious the problems of Belarus are. One could say that it is a country in a process of deconstruction and one has to take it into account when it comes to implementing any kind of measures addressed to it. One has to be serious and decisive when it comes to Belarus.

Reshaping EU’s strategy toward Belarus

As it is already obvious, neither political nor economic sanctions bring a desired result. The latter, for instance, were artfully used by the Belarusian regime as an occasion to present the European Union as an enemy of the Belarusian people, since it had introduced severe economic sanctions, which allegedly harmed ordinary citizens and their level of life. State propaganda does its best to make people believe in it and promote hatred of the European Union. At the same time, Russia is presented as the only protector of Belarus and its people, condemning any kind of actions on behalf of the EU toward Belarus.

The EU should understand that there is no way of influencing the regime in Belarus neither by negotiations nor by policy of conditionality. It should understand the very essence of this regime and how it was initially established, developed and protected by Russia. The EU should attempt to deal not with the illegitimately elected politicians and the dictator, but with the Belarusian people and there are various ways of doing so. Nineteen years of constant failures in democratizing Belarus, show that individually addressed measures do not work or not enough. There has to be a strategy addressed to the masses, to the whole nation and not only to outstanding individuals. Only in this way the EU may receive a wide support and trust on behalf of all Belarusians. It simply has to make such a brave step, which will be loud and clear for all Belarusians without any exception.

Unilateral abolition of visas for Belarusian citizens

If the European Union unilaterally abolished visas for the Belarusian citizens, it would be a beginning of real changes in Belarus. No state propaganda or state of fear would be able to withstand it. The status quo would not be possible any longer. Belarusians would travel to the European Union, reshaping their mentality, way of thinking and understanding better their place in Europe and in the world. One has to compare things in order to understand them better. In this way, Belarusians would be really able to compare the level of life and standards both in Belarus and in the European Union accordingly. That would totally reshape their way of thinking.

At the same time, it would be even profitable for the European Union, since Belarusians would not come to the EU with empty pockets. In such a way, the EU would actually even earn money from their maybe small, but investments, since they would have to pay for education, living, food, shopping and other expenses. Many of them would most probably make real estate purchases; some of them will open businesses and establish real connections between Belarusians and citizens of the EU member-states. Of course, it may seem to be too optimistic or even utopian, however, if such a step was made, it would most probably take years before one could see real changes. Nonetheless, one thing is for certain, as soon as visas are abolished, the process of changes would be inevitable for the current regime.

It would provide Belarusians with alternative to Russia and long-awaited choice, which would be dependent this time only on them. So what is the point of wasting hundreds of millions of euros and dollars on numerous programs and initiatives that do not bring any desired results, but worsen the situation moving Belarus closer to Russia? If the EU abolished visas for Belarusians, it would not waste, but earn both political and economic dividends, most likely getting rid of Europe’s last dictatorship at the same time. What stops the EU then?

Providing an alternative choice to Belarusians

Belarusians are deprived of their legal right of influencing the political process in their country. They are deprived of real choice. The abolition of visas on behalf of the EU would substitute this lackage and provide them with a real choice between the East and the West. Choosing between the two options, they would certainly choose the best one, which is the European Union. At the same time, it would perfectly take into account the issue of an open border of Belarus with the Russian Federation. The EU could deal with it simply by checking passports on its external border and letting in only those with Belarusian ones. This kind of a step would not put Europe under any kind of risk, because it would be addressed only to Belarusians who having a legal possibility of coming to the European Union to study, work or travel would be discouraged of any kind of illegal immigration. Even if many of them attempted to stay in the EU, this would not have a negative outcome for both the EU and Belarus, since Belarusians would start establishing closer relations with the Europeans and at the same time would stay in touch with their families and friends in Belarus, which would also encourage the latter to change their way of thinking and support the European way of development as well. It would also help bringing down all of the stereotypes and clichés created during all this time by the media on both sides. The political agenda of the Belarusian regime would not matter any longer; the regime would simply lose its support. The masses would no longer believe in anti-European, anti-Western propaganda and lies about artificial enemies created by the regime. In such a way Belarusians would naturally make a choice for a long time unrightfully taken from them.

Bringing down the regime

The abolition of visas could be so influential and far going in case of Belarus that even the ruling elite may turn against the dictator. Having lived for so long in a status quo, they simply do not imagine this kind of a possibility. This would be a signal of changes for them. It would destroy all of their certainty and belief in the inexorability of the regime. The regime itself seeing many of its representatives traveling to the European Union would start making mistakes triggering a witch-hunt against them, suspecting them in betrayal. As a result, it could probably turn the nomenclature against the regime and lead to a coup d’état.

The same strategy might be also applied to Ukraine, which as a result could lead to a further democratization and Europeanization of the whole region. So, why the EU still misses the point and keeps losing Belarus?

Kazaghi, between Chechnya and South Ossetia, where one of Russia’s military bases is located. author: tigerweet. source: Flickr

The Russian Foreign Minister emphasised that Russia and Belarus share a “unified military airspace”, and that this airbase should not be seen as a cause for concern or interpreted as retaliation for a proposed missile defense in Europe. Minister Lavrov explained:

“No matter if there are Belarusian or Russian planes there, nothing will change… We are protecting our border [of the Union State of Russia and Belarus].”

Currently Russia has agreements with Belarus and Kazakhstan to create joint regional air defense systems, but eventually Russia is planning to construct an integrated air and missile defense system covering all six countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which also includes Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Meanwhile, adding to international concerns,  it has been reported that Russia’s Southern Military District’s forces, whose responsibility cover the entire Caucasus region, have been re-equipping relatively fast. With bases in Armenia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, this news has raised questions about the nature of the increased activity by the Russian military in the region–whether it is a sign of “dynamic development” or a “power message” to its neighbours?

The modernisation of Russia’s military power has arguably been a priority since its 2008 war with Georgia, and with the 2014 Sochi olympics on the horizon, analysts have suggested that this surge of military activity may simply be a display of development. Georgian and Russian relations have seen some movement since the beginning of this year, thawing a political stalemate which lasted since the 2008 conflict.

However, in his meeting with  German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Lavrov said that security in Europe was “only possible together with Russia.”

"Trading off sovereignty" New OSW Commentary on Belarus’s integration with Russia in the security and defence field http://t.co/ccTTcyfWCl

29.04.2013 09:28 via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@OSW_eng

OSW Warsaw ThinkTank

Opposition in #Belarus voices concerns about troops from #Russia being deployed in country at new airbase http://t.co/vkg9uOpAPL

25.04.2013 20:50 via HootSuiteReplyRetweetFavorite

@EFNetwork

Eurasia Foundation

sources: RT, PONARS Eurasia

Learn more about the The Sayat Nova Project & the traditional music of the Caucasus.

Photo gallery by Onnik Krikorian

&

(for desserts):

END OF THE CAROUSEL. Hardly fought election for Yerevan City Council consolidates President Sargsyan’s hold on power

by the Caucasus Elections Watch

Eastbook.eu: Ukraine: Europe or Eurasia? | Armenia: Is the Eurasian Union an Alternative?

Eastern Europe Initiatives Congress 2012, source: kongres.lublin.eu

It is directed to all entities without any formal or legal restrictions; cultural institutions, non-governmental organisations as well as informal creative groups, private individuals, local governments and economic entities, both from the European Union countries and from the Eastern Partnership.

The main purpose of the Contest is to develop cross-border cooperation and to exchange good practices and experiences in the field of project initiatives of a developmental nature implemented in the area of Eastern Europe. One main prize in each of the seven categories (good governance, civil society, culture, tourism, education, Corporate Social Responsibility, social innovations) will be awarded in the Contest together with honourable mentions. The awarded projects will be presented during the Congress and they will also be published in a promotional folder. This will allow to provide thousands of recipients with information about the best practices of implementing partnership projects with the Eastern Partnership’s Countries.

You can apply for the Contest online through a form available on www.kongres.lublin.eu

Additionally, prizes for the contest of the NGOmap programme will also be awarded during this year’s Congress and the winners will also be guests of the Eastern Europe Initiatives Congress.

NGOmap is an international programme of support for non-governmental organisations from the countries covered by the EU Eastern Partnership programme. It was created by experienced representatives of non-governmental circles. It is an answer to the commonly reported needs to strengthen bonds and contacts exceeding national borders.

You can apply to the NGOmap contest through the website www.ngomap.eu

The Lake and the Stone Cross – Yerevan, Armenia, author: whl.travel, source: Flickr

The foreign policy directions of the South Caucasus states, for example, became a topic of discussion from the very beginning of their independence. The interconnected and interdependent system of cooperation in the fields of the social, economic and political life created by the Soviet Union collapsed with itself and the post-Soviet states had to begin everything from the very beginning.  The new starting point was very challenging but it was also an opportunity for reviewing the foreign policy strategy of each state.

The idea of continuing the level of cooperation between the post-Soviet states is not new. There were several attempts to create a platform and format for cooperation but apparently all of them failed. Organizations such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova), Common Economic Space (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia), Eurasian Economic Community (Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan  Tajikistan, Belarus), and even the Collective security Treaty Organization, or CSTO, (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan  Tajikistan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Belarus) have not had any tangible results or achieved any “success stories” so far.

Although the idea of the Eurasian Union is not new, it is still at its initial stage. First of all, there is no institutional structure behind that idea.  The Eurasian Union is considered to be Russian President Putin’s personal pet project or brainchild. The only possible background that exists and that can be expanded into the Eurasian Union is the Common Economic Space. However, taking even a brief look at the political and economic systems of the countries involved, it does not give much hope or motivation to join. Presidents Putin, Nazarbayev and Lukashenko, and the systems created by them, are not the best examples and role models for democratic governance and the rule of law.

Secondly, it is apparent that the possible creation of the Eurasian Union is mainly directed at the inclusion of Ukraine. Nobody has officially invited Armenia to be a part as of yet. Besides, Armenian foreign policy strategy clearly states that it is seeking more involvement in European structures and deepening the ties with the EU. Moreover, Armenian President Sargsyan has lately announced that Armenia has already chosen its foreign policy dimension– which is the European one.

Third, such recent developments as the latest document which is a non-binding memorandum that was signed between Armenia and the Eurasian Union Economic Commission or Foreign Minister Nalbandian’s visit to Moscow just after being re-appointed, have only a role of a symbolic gesture towards Moscow, taking into account the enormous Russian influence on Armenia.

Fourth, even if Armenia joins the Eurasian Union, cooperation with it does not necessarily contradict cooperation with the EU. In many spheres, the EU and Russia have common interests in the region. At least in terms of the official rhetoric, both of them seek security, stability and prosperity in the region.

Last but not the least, despite cooperation with EU, the Eurasian Union or other structures, Armenia’s foreign policy should be neither pro-Russian nor pro-European. It should be pro-Armenian only - it is important to emphasize that Armenia has its own interests and priorities which do not necessarily coincide with the interests and priorities of EU, Russia or any other players.

Lithuania’s Logo for the EU Presidency. source: Foreign Ministry of Affairs in the Republic of Lithuania”

President Grybauskaitė told the gathering:

“A kite’s flight is the ability to harness the wind for own success. Lithuania is preparing for a special flight during the next half of the year – we will have to work shoulder to shoulder consolidating Europe and looking together for the best solutions. Therefore, the logo of our presidency symbolizes cooperation and stability, and kites are flying wishes for the well-being of Europe.”

Lithuania’s presidency over the European Union (EU) Council will be symbolized by a logo of a blue circle with a string of the colors of Lithuania’s national flag – yellow, green, and red.

Spokeswoman of the EU presidency in Lithuania, Rasa Jakilaitienė, explained in a press conference today that the circle stands for unity, which shows that Lithuania will aim to be an honest mediator seeking to harmonise the interests of all. According to Jakilaitienė, the blue stands for Lithuania’s connection to the Baltic Sea region and the Nordic states, while the string symbolizes Lithuania’s determination to take responsibility.

“The circle is connected by the string of yellow, green, and red, which means that Lithuania is taking full responsibility for presidency over the EU Council,” Jakilaitienė explained.

Lithuania’s Presidency has high hopes pinned on it as Lithuania is considered to have a special role to play in the intensification of cooperation with the Neighbourhood countries.  Attention has turned, particularly, to neighbouring Belarus–for which is it felt Lithuania may have the opportunity to foster a more constructive relationship, and encourage more cooperation with the EU.

As the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) explains:

“In recent times there has been an intensification of political and economic relations between Lithuania and Belarus. Because they are neighbours and have numerous political and economic links, Lithuania can be expected to want to use its presidency of the EU Council to resume a dialogue with the Belarusian authorities. This would be a great success for Lithuanian diplomacy, especially in the context of the Eastern Partnership summit planned for November this year. Poland should closely monitor the activities of the Lithuanian side and raise the issue of releasing political prisoners in Belarus as a condition for the resumption of talks with representatives of the regime.”

Last month Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko spoke about the potential Lithuania’s EU Presidency would offer Belarus, saying.

“The two countries have many common interests in the areas of security, trade and industrial cooperation. We should use and increase the existing transport and logistics potential. We’re ready to make our relations a model of genuine good neighborliness.”If Lithuania wants to cooperate with us—and it does—and if Lithuania gets rid of some outside pressures, we’ll build relations that our nations want, and not only [our] nations but also our and your political elite. Rest assured that we’re ready for this.”

Andrey Hiro, the Belarusian ambassador to Germany expressed the hope that President Lukashenko will be invited to the next Eastern Partnership Summit taking place in Vilnius in November.  Hiro explained that Mr Lukashenko was initially invited to the 2009 summit for the launch of the Eastern Partnership program.  Since, however, Hiro explained that EU diplomats asked Minsk to send a different representative to the summit. Minsk acquiesced because it pinned great hopes on the program, however, Hiro emphasised that the Eastern Partnership Program has failed to live up to expectations. The upcoming summit in Lithuania, combined with the Council Presidency could be a turning point for improved relations with Belarus, under the umbrella of the Eastern Partnership.

In fact, the enrichment of the Eastern Partnership is one of Lithuania’s primary objectives during its Presidency–to contribute to a “credible, growing and open Europe”. Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevicius and Hungary’s Ambassador to Lithuania Zoltan Pecze met this week to discuss the acceleration of the Eastern Partnership program. The two nations reported to share similar positions on many key issues, and Linkevicius invited Hungary to participate at the highest possible political level in the Eastern Partnership Summit in November. Linkevicius has also held meetings with the leaders of many of the Eastern Partnership countries in the run-up to the Summit, stressing the importance of cooperation between the Neighbourhood and the EU.

Meanwhile, Ireland, as current Council President, has this week released a statement detailing its contributions to the enlargement of the European Union and developments in the OSCE under Ireland’s presidency. The statement highlights the accession of Croatia to the EU in July, as well as the increasing pace of talks with Montenegro, Turkey and Iceland, as well as and the candidate state status of Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The agreement last week between Serbia and Kosovo was also addressed.

“The Presidency has allowed Ireland to demonstrate that we are a constructive and committed Member State that belongs at the very heart of the European decision-making process. We are now over halfway through our term and we remain firmly committed to ensuring that our seventh Presidency leaves a positive, strong and lasting legacy both for the EU and for Ireland, ” the statement reads.

sources: Lithuania Tribune , Belsat