The participants came from the six countries of the Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine), as well as from ten other European countries. They all responded to the call launched by the European Movement because they believe that our identity as Europeans does not require us to be less of who we are, but rather permits us to be more of who we wish to be; because they value diversity as an important aspect of contemporary European values, and solidarity as a fundamental cornerstone of European integration; and because they wish to deepen the network and roots of civil society, encouraging it to educate, to motivate and to advocate.

With this motivation, and sharing beliefs in a pluralist democracy, in multi-party systems, based on free, open and fair elections, in the rule of law with a separation of powers between the executive and the judicial branches of government, in respect for individual human rights and the dignity of the person, and in the classic freedoms of expression, association and religion, the participants engaged in a dialogue and agreed on the following conclusions:

1.    Development of and EU support for the Civil Society

In order to foster further development of the Civil Society in the Eastern Partnership countries, the participants think that the European Union should consider the possibility of providing long-term (multiannual) financial support, especially to local and national civil society organizations which promote the aims and objectives of the Eastern Partnership in general and, in particular, to those promoting Democracy and Human Rights. This should not replace, however, the need for the states concerned to develop coherent and transparent schemes to support civil society organizations in their own countries.

Especially in a region where education is going through major, not always very successful changes, non-formal education provided by civil society organizations should, according to the participants, be seen as an important element in bridging the gaps in the formal education system and, as such, fully recognized and adequately supported, not only through financial means, but also through a legal framework that favors the fulfillment of its potential.

The participants also expressed their support for the European Parliament resolution on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy – Eastern Dimension, of 7 April 2011, and, in particular, to its paragraph 49 calling on the Vice President/High Representative and the EEAS “to develop more confidence-building measures and programmes, including the launching of new missions and public communication strategies and the consideration of pragmatic initiatives and innovative approaches such as informal contacts and consultations with the societies of the breakaway territories, while conserving the EU’s non-recognition policy, in order to support civic culture and community dialogue”.

2.    The Process of National Reforms

While recognizing the tremendous efforts and the huge progress made by all the six countries in comparison to their starting points 20 years ago, the participants observed the need for an increased pace of reforms in all the policy fields covered by the Eastern Partnership and in all the countries concerned. Specifically as regards relations with Civil Society, the obstacles to the registration of civil society organisations (particularly in Belarus), to the capacity of these organisations to generate and keep their own funds (for instance in Armenia), to the ability of these organisations to freely operate and express their opinions (in Azerbaijan and Ukraine), and the difficulties in generating interest among citizens who have been raised in totally state-led systems (all the countries concerned) were some of the issues raised at the Congress. Parallel to these, the issues of freedom of expression and of independence of the media were also mentioned to be crucial in the context of further reforms.

The participants agreed that one of the possible answers to these problems lies in more efforts being put into alliance-building among civil society organizations working on similar projects and sharing the same objectives, which would hopefully increase the efficiency of their work but would also contribute to a stronger position when engaging in a dialogue with the Government and other public authorities. In this respect the role that could be played by National Councils of the European Movement in the countries of the Eastern Partnership as a meeting point and forum for exchange for all civil society organisations working in favor of European integration was underlined.

3.    Visa Liberalization and People-to-People Contacts

The participants took note of the progresses made in the negotiations towards Visa Liberalization (Moldova and Ukraine) and Visa Facilitation agreements (Georgia), as well as welcoming the recent proposal of the European Commission to initiate negotiations on Visa Facilitation with Armenia and Azerbaijan. While noting that common problems exist, participants recognized that solutions need to be sought in the context of very different circumstances in each one of the countries; therefore, while believing that the Eastern Partnership provides a platform for a regional approach to European integration, each state in the region carries its own responsibilities on a case by case basis to implement the necessary reforms to facilitate progress.

Acknowledging that visa restrictions are a significant obstacle to people-to-people contacts and that these hinder the development of dialogue and cooperation between civil society organizations from the Eastern Partnership countries and the member states of the European Union, participants proposed a set of recommendations including: the encouragement of the exchange of information on established practices (e.g. Moldovan migration strategy and Ukrainian experience in monitoring the Visa Liberalization Agreement) and promoting good practice (e.g. the establishment of Common Visa Centres in Moldova); encouraging civil society organizations to establish and/or join alliances advocating visa-free actions and implementing common projects; asking the European Union member states to grant “home student status” to all the students coming from the European Partnership countries; asking Armenia and Azerbaijan to abolish visa restrictions for EU citizens.

In concluding, the participants thanked the Armenian authorities and the National Council of the European Movement in Armenia for their warm hospitality; thanked the “Gagik Tsarukyan Foundation” and the Delegation of the European Union to Armenia for their support; and called on the European Movement International, together with its National Councils in the countries of the Eastern Partnership, to encourage on-going opportunities for discussion and exchange of opinions, and promoting cooperation and greater solidarity among civil society organisations throughout Europe.

Yerevan, 21 October 2011

Download the PDF Version, please click here

Contact:

European Movement International (EMI)
Square de Meeûs 25
B – 1000 Bruxelles
Tel. + 32 2 508 30 88
Fax: + 32 2 508 30 89

The Yerevan-Blog shall serve as a platform of exchange in order to prepare the Yerevan-Congress and we invite you to submit your ideas on the topics to be discussed such as the Civil Society development in the Eastern Partnership countries, regional/national reform processes, Visa liberalization or simply Civil Society activities that deserve to be highlighted (please see below for more details on the workshops and also visit the documents section). We will publish your recommendations and ideas on this blog and look forward to your comments.

The most popular contributions will be debated during the congress with civil society actors as well as local and national public authorities from the European Union and the Eastern Partnership countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine).

During the 2-day programme, participants will have the possibility to work on a political strategy that is supposed to provide recommendations on the further development of the regional civil society dialogue. In the long term perspective, the objective is to contribute to the democratization process and to eradicate the gap between public authorities and citizens in the policy-making process.

Have your say and send us your ideas!!! Contact E-Mail

Workshop 1: Development of and EU Support for the Civil Society

The development of the Civil Society in the Eastern Partnership countries is characterized by a qualitative progress as a result of the European Union’s assistance and of local authorities’ efforts. But how should the EU strategy be interpreted: as a contribution to the socialization of the Eastern Partnership member states or as a conditionality policy, as a preparation for the status of potential membership or as a proof of mutually beneficial coexistence without any prospects of this membership? The workshop will also examine the necessity to increase the participation of CSOs in programming and implementing EU instruments in order to improve the effectiveness of the support for Civil Society in the Eastern Partnership countries.

Workshop 2: The Process of National Reforms

The workshop will emphasize on the role of Civil Society cooperation in European integration, inducing national authorities to undertake reforms. For this purpose it is necessary to enhance the representation of the population in political life and the participation of CSOs in the decision-making process and to increase their possibility to monitor the implementation of EU projects by public authorities. Most states have a liberal legislation, guaranteeing the right to association, but organisational weakness and complicated registration procedures restrict this right. The priorities in national reforms should be the enhancement of the CSOs’ participation in the realisation of an anti-corruption campaign, the strategy of independent media and democratic and transparent elections, judicial reform and respect for the rights of national minorities. It is necessary to examine the role of cross-boundary cooperation mechanisms in this enhancement.

Workshop 3: Visa Liberalisation and People-to-People Contacts

There are some achievements on the path to the institutionalization of secure and well-managed mobility of population between the EU and Eastern Partnership countries. The Visa Liberalization process is realized on a case-by-case basis according to the peculiarities of the individual states of the region, but it is necessary to provide the CSOs of these countries with a possibility of cross-border information and experience exchange on this issue. The Civil Society should also be engaged in the implementation of the people-to-people programs, especially for younger generations, in order to make this implementation more effective and to enhance a mutual understanding between the EU and Eastern Partnership states.

First of all, the main problem which is not connected only to Georgia, but to the whole post-soviet states and troubles them is soviet mentality existed in societies. This is a kind of problem, which needs decades to solve. “Leninist culture” of lifestyle, characterized by a strict separation between the public and private spheres, low levels of trust and suspicion of politics, remained in our society. Almost every citizen thinks that public sphere is not his or her job. They are afraid of state bureaucracy and think that they cannot change anything. This situation makes society to treat with indifference toward civil society. They have got total disbelief, apathy and low level of solidarity.

Society’s disbelief toward civil society has also other reasons. Nowadays there are many NGOs in Georgia but most of them are ineffective and in some cases have no functions. It is rare fact to create NGO round the urgent problem which troubles society. There is a trend that NGOs are founded for getting grants from different funds. These grants are spent on number of projects, which finally have no results. For example, there are NGOs working on educational problems, but when the students started to protest these problems in the streets, none of them appeared on these actions.

Also NGOs in Georgia have little number of members and even these members are indifferent toward the organization’s activity. According to the 2007 Caucasus Barometer survey, just 0.7 percent of the population attended meetings of any sort of club or association in the previous six months. In Azerbaijan, meanwhile, 1.7 percent attended such meetings, while in Armenia the number was 2.4 percent.

The weakness and inertness of the civil society give strong ruler opportunities not to engage those NGOs in decision-making process and not to foresee their recommendations. This situation makes governments to become more authoritarian, which damages democratic processes in our country.

The Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum was created in 2009. Study groups at the first congress (in Brussels on November 16-17, 2009), and the second congress (in Berlin on 18-19 November, 2010) suggested involving ‘frozen conflict’ zones¹ in specific EU programs. In particular, this concerns Artsakh (a.k.a. the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh), Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria.

The above-mentioned countries in different European programs have been discussed in many analytical circles and public organizations. They will soon become more systematic, having been reflected in various resolutions on issues related to the Southern Caucasus Region and the Eastern Partnership initiative, which were approved by the European Parliament. The most recent resolution, “On reviewing the European Partnership Program – the Eastern Dimension”,  was approved on April 7, 2011. Item no. 48 calls upon EU executive authorities, adhering to the European non-recognition policy, to implement programs aimed at creating an atmosphere of confidence, and to adopt new missions and strategies of public cooperation, which would include “pragmatic initiatives and innovative approaches through unofficial contacts and meetings with communities from these ‘secessionist’ territories”.²

By launching this process, often called ‘Involvement without Recognition’, the EU aims at cooperating actively with non-recognized or partially recognized countries on post-Soviet territory through their respective civil societies. How should the EU’s position be interpreted? We feel that there are several reasons for this stance:

1. The EU wishes to make sure that the above-mentioned countries are predictable, and to prevent them from becoming self-isolated;

2. The EU wishes to involve the above-mentioned countries in certain programs so that there are no ‘non-European oases’ in areas associated with the Eastern Partnership;

3. The EU wishes to take part in resolving conflicts in Eastern Partnership areas. This is brought up in item no. 49 of the Resolution of April 7, 2011, whereby the EU is invited to take part in settling current regional conflicts by means of a special EU representative institution, supervised by the High Representative for EU Foreign and Security Policy, the Deputy Representative of the European Commission.³

4. The position of the EU has evolved because of the activities of different lobby groups (particularly Armenian organizations).

We would like to point out that European countries have been making great efforts in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic ever since 1992, when the war initiated by Azerbaijan was just beginning, and when more than 40% of Nagorno-Karabakh was consequently seized by Azerbaijan. These efforts were basically humanitarian, and were also undertaken by Christian organizations and human rights associations. The truce of 1994 concluded between Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Armenia allowed the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh to recover from the consequences of a difficult war, build up government structures, and create a civil society. European countries and organizations have shown a growing interest in the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh since 2000. This was first observed in the peace initiatives, which were aimed at promoting a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Work programs have become more coordinated since 2003, when initiatives introduced by the British organizations Alert, Conciliation Resources and the London Information Network on Conflicts and State Building (LINKS) led to the creation of a consortium dedicated to directing the efforts of European civil society towards resolving the Karabakh conflict. Today this Consortium includes such organizations as International Alert, Conciliation Resources, the Conflict Management Initiative, Kvinna till Kvinna, and the London Information Network on Conflicts and State Building (LINKS), which are all financed by the EU in order to support efforts to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict.

The Consortium’s main objectives  consist in seeking initiatives to promote a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict in cooperation with local civilians and political activists. In this context, the Consortium emphasizes the importance of media-based initiatives, and better opportunities for the mass media to ensure an environment of alternative and balanced information in order to support the settlement of this conflict, as well as the peacekeeping missions. The Consortium also aims at giving more opportunities to the parties involved in the conflict by encouraging more critical viewpoints in socially active groups participating in the peace process. The Consortium also wishes to create an effective and integrated environment to settle the issues through closer negotiations.

The main partners of the Consortium in Nagorno-Karabakh are the Stepanakert Press Club, which since January 2009 has been publishing Analitikon, a monthly analytical and advertising magazine, Demo, a public newspaper published from 2004 to 2008; the Institute of National Democracy, which basically gets involved with peacekeeping activities by participating in meetings with young people and other groups in Karabakh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; the analytical center of the unregistered Council on Foreign and Security Policies of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has operated since 2008, and is involved in programs requiring expert and analytical work ; it is managed by the former Deputy Foreign Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh, Masis Mailyan, who was the main alternative candidate during the last presidential elections in 2007. These organizations are considered to be the main partners of the Consortium in Nagorno-Karabakh, regardless of the fact that other organizations in one form or another also take part in different programs.

Judging by the fact that the positions of the different communities have become much more rigid, militaristic rhetoric has increased, particularly  against the background of repeated aggressive demands coming from Azerbaijan – not only from official channels, but also from civilians, – and against the background of the accelerating arms race, it can be supposed that the work of the Consortium has not been very effective. In our opinion, inaccurate and unsound tactics are the main reasons for this situation. The peacekeeping programs in their present format are very inefficient. In particular, our contacts with young people taking part in different programs involving Karabakh and Azerbaijan confirm that most of them are participating in these programs just to visit Tbilisi or Jordan, and have a good time there. There is no doubt that direct contacts between Karabakh and Azerbaijani young people allow both sides to receive alternative information. However, such contacts are not really effective, and, in the end, the even more closely-knit circles of young people do not contribute to encouraging more trust, or improving the measures which were initially aimed towards peacekeeping.  On the other hand, it should be noted that the European organizations which have joined the Consortium have spent impressive amounts of money (allocated by the EU) on their own administrative expenses, hotel accommodation, trips, and other items, which make EU efforts to improve the situation even more inefficient. Despite these observations, we should assess the media initiatives to have been successful to a certain extent, considering that they have helped to form an alternative press in these communities.

Having expanded its activities in the region after the start of the Eastern Partnership, it is important for the EU to take the experiences of the Consortium into account, particularly its mistakes. The EU should not waste time introducing fruitless peacekeeping initiatives, but should pay more attention to directly implementing different educational programs, and developing a civil society and a free press, but without associating them with certain aspects of the actual conflict. Democratic countries, where the driving force is civil society, are more open to dialogue and reconciliation than post-totalitarian, nationalistic, and narrow-minded communities. Work programs with  civil society in Karabakh should be run outside this conflictual context, as public organizations have already been seriously criticized for ‘funded peacekeeping activities’ by Azerbaijan’s leaders of militarist rhetoric.

In this context, it is very important for the EU to work directly with public organizations in Nagorno-Karabakh, in compliance with the Resolution approved by the European Parliament on April 7, 2011. European efforts in this region, and especially in Nagorno-Karabakh, will then become much more effective. It is also important for the EU to find the courage to stand up and cooperate with the authorities of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. There is no doubt that readiness to work with Karabakh civil society will be more than welcome, but we should not forget that it is this society that elects its own government through a democratic process. This policy of involvement, activated by the Eastern Partnership, could considerably enhance the role of the EU in the region, and bring about positive results in the Southern Caucasus, where they are greatly needed.

In conclusion, we wish to confirm that the launch of the Eastern Partnership, and the principle of ‘Involvement without Recognition’ have become real and significant opportunities to develop a civil society in the conflict zones neighbouring Europe; in fact, these efforts are absolutely necessary for achieving success and making positive strides in the unrecognized or partially recognized post-Soviet republics. Whether these opportunities will be properly used will to a great extent depend on how real and informal these efforts are, and to what extent previous mistakes are avoided.

Hayk Khanumyan, Chairman o f the ”European Movement in Artsakh” NGO

1. Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, recommendations, working group 1: Democracy, human rights, good governance and stability,http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/civil_society/forum/working_group1_en.pdf) .

2. European Parliament Resolution of 7 April 2011 on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy – Eastern Dimension,http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0153+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

3. See same Resolution, Article 49.

http://www.easternpartnership.org/publication/2011-09-12/involvement-without-recognition-new-opportunities-peace

This article was also published on http://www.easternpartnership.org/

2. Les organisations de la Société Civile sont très diverses en dimension, en objectif poursuivi et en type d’organisation.

3. Chacune doit être basée sur une vision et la conviction de remplir un rôle dans la société.

La vision, la conviction de remplir une mission utile pour la société est essentielle – c’est le moteur.

4. Il faut une capacité d’agir mais la recherche de fonds n’est pas le moteur mais un carburant utile et ne peut être source de dépendance

5. La création d’une carrière pour les initiateurs n’est pas un objectif.

6. Les règles légales doivent exister.

Les Lois et Coutumes doivent garantir la liberté d’action dans ce cadre.

Elles doivent fixer les principes des relations entre le OSC et les autorités au différent niveau.

Elles doivent encourager les administrations d’utiliser et valoriser le rôle consultatif des organisations de la société civile.

Elles doivent encourager les autorités à faciliter les conditions matérielles d’existence des NGO.

7. Chaque NGO a sa territorialité qui définit l’éventuelle autorité interlocutrice.

8. Mais chaque NGO a avantage

-          à coopérer avec d’autres NGO sur des sujets communs ou complémentaires ;

-          et à coopérer au-delà de son territoire avec les NGO semblables ou parallèles.

La coopération internationale est une source d’influence accrue, d’information réciproque et de soutien d’échange de « Best Practices ».

C’est particulièrement vrai entre pays organisant leur coopération ou leur intégration et plus spécialement dans et autour de l’Union Européenne. Dans celle-ci la consultation de la société civile est un principe de gouvernance.

9. Chaque NGO doit avoir ses règles intérieures de démocratie participative assurant la mobilisation de ses membres ou l’adhésion d’autres citoyens.

10. Le MEI s’efforce d’assurer sa vocation qui est d’encourager la coopération et l’intégration entre les peuples et les Etats.

Sa large dimension internationale implique une liberté et diversité des organisations membres et une démocratie interne dans la désignation de ses organes dirigeant et des choix de ses actions, et de transmission des opinions des organisations membres.

Charles-Ferdinand Nothomb, EMI Vice-President

In 1995/96 the countries (except Belarus) signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union, which came into force in 1998/99 and serves as the main legal bases of the cooperation between Armenia, Azerbaijan, , Georgia, Modova and Ukraine on one side and the European Union on the other.

With the initiative of the European Union In 2004 the European Neighborhood Policy has been launched upon the existing PCA. It offers a privileged relationship, building upon a mutual commitment to common values (democracy and human rights, rule of law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable development). The ENP went beyond existing relationships to offer political association and deeper economic integration, increased mobility and more people-to-people contacts. This ENP framework includes the 16 of EU’s closest neighbours – Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan,Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco,Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine.

With the initiative of Poland and Sweden in 2008 the EU proposed its eastern European partners a more ambitious partnership, which foresees a substantial upgrading of the level of political engagement, including the prospect of a new generation of Association Agreements, far-reaching integration into the EU economy, easier travel to the EU for citizens providing that security requirements are met, enhanced energy security arrangements benefitting all concerned, and increased financial assistance. The EU proposes much more intensive day to day support for partners’ reform efforts through a new Comprehensive Institution Building program, and a new multilateral dimension which will bring partners together to address common challenges. The new Partnership includes new measures to support the social and economic development of the 6 countries, and five flagship initiatives that will give very concrete evidence of the EU’s support.

From the very beginning the Civil Societies of both the European Union and the partner countries played an essential role in promoting democratic decision making and democratic developments in respective countries. The reforms and institutional transformations cannot be effective without the active participation of civil society organizations and groups. However, there is a clear need to enhance the role of the civil societies in European Integration processes of the Eastern Partnership countries. The challenging aspect of the role of the civil society is to discover the capacities, limitations and institutional mechanisms of Government-Civil Society cooperation.

The EMI congress on “Fostering Civil Society’s role for further European integration in the Eastern Partnership countries” should address the challenges mentioned and question the following:

1. Is there conflict of interest between the independence and governmental support of the civil society?
2. Should the EU support also the Civil Society Organizations acting within the non recognized territories of EaP countries (Abkhazia, Osetia, Nagorno Karabakh, and Transdnestria)?
3. Should governments create mechanisms for civil society cooperation?
4. Should the EU financial support go to segment professionals/ think thanks or rather politically active NGO’s?
5. Is visa liberalization a mobility or migration issue?
6. How can the CSO’s challenge, motivate and monitor their governments in the process of national reforms?

This and many other issues should be questioned during the congress in Yerevan on 20^th-21^st of October, following with a summarized declaration which can serve as an instrument for a better cooperation between EU-National Governments-CSO triangle.

We, the European Movement in Armenia, hope very much that this blog, will be the main platform of exchange of ideas and are very much looking forward to welcome here our colleagues, decision makers and partners from Eastern Partnership and European Union countries.

Viktor Yengibaryan, President European Movement in Armenia

Background

The Eastern Partnership, as proposed by the European Commission in December 2008 and endorsed by the European Council in March this year will complete the EU’s foreign policy towards Eastern Europe and South Caucasus through the development of a specific Eastern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Successive enlargements of the EU brought these countries closer to the EU and led to increased political ties. The EU’s and these countries’ energy security are interlinked while the EU has a growing responsibility to the partners to help them address the socio-economic challenges they face and support their aspirations for closer ties, not least in the light of unresolved regional conflicts. The Eastern Partnership will be developed in parallel with bilateral cooperation between the EU and third countries, including the EU’s Strategic Partnership with Russia.

The Eastern Partnership offers deeper bilateral relations and launches a new multilateral framework for cooperation, according to partners’ needs and ambitions, i.e.:

• New Association Agreements (for those partners that have made sufficient progress towards democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and principles of market economy, sustainable development and good governance)
• Better economic integration with the EU (with the objective of establishing deep and comprehensive Free Trade Areas), as well as free trade among the partners themselves, with a longer term goal to develop a Neighbourhood Economic Community
• Increased mobility through visa facilitation and readmission agreements (with gradual steps towards full visa liberalisation as a long term goal on a case by case basis provided that conditions for well-managed and secure mobility are in place)
• Strengthened energy security cooperation, including through support to investment in infrastructure, better regulation, energy efficiency and more efficient early warning systems to prevent disruption of supply
• Improved administrative capacity of partner countries through jointly decided Comprehensive Institution-Building Programmes, financed by the EU
• Specific programmes addressing economic and social development in the partner countries, aimed at reducing disparities of wealth between regions which can undermine stability; additional financial support of € 350 million for the period till 2013, plus the redeployment of €250 million bringing the total for the implementation of the policy to €600 million

One innovative component of the Eastern Partnership is a multilateral track consisting of four platforms which will bring the Eastern Partners together to exchange experience and information on issues like:

• Democracy, good governance and stability
• Economic integration and convergence with EU policies
• Energy security
• Contacts between people

The platforms will be providing a framework in which common challenges can be addressed through seminars to improve understanding of EU legislation and standards, sharing of experience, and where appropriate, development of joint activities. Work on setting up these platforms is to begin in June with a first meeting of the platform on democracy, good governance and stability.

Five high profile initiatives (flagship initiatives) in the framework of the multilateral track will serve the countries’ interests and at the same time our own:

• Border management programme
• Integration of electricity markets, energy efficiency and renewables
• An SME facility
• Southern corridor
• Response to disasters

Further information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/eastern/index_en.htm

The EU and Armenia

The European Neighborhood Policy as well as the Eastern Partnership from the European perspective has two main geopolitical interests; i.e. support for the economic development of the beneficiary countries and an increase in political predictability.

In fact these two major groups of the EU interests coincide with Armenia’s main interests.

For its economic development, Armenia has a unique opportunity for taking the path that Eastern European EU member states and EU candidate states passed and continue to pass. On the other hand, the European Union provides technical support, thanks to which Armenia has an opportunity to transpose the experience of those countries in the Armenian legal framework and implement institutional reforms. Armenia is on the way to sign the Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements. These Agreements are also unique and will lead to significant changes in both the internal life of Armenia and in its relations with the EU. Free movement of people, goods, capital and services may become the ground for the development of economy, education, science, social, healthcare and a number of other systems in Armenia.

From the perspective of political predictability, the European Union seeks to mobilize its support in two main domains. Development of democracy, human rights and freedoms unfortunately are still on the agenda of the EU-Armenia relations. The European Union seeks to solve these issues in the nearest future through co-operation with state institutions and civil society organizations.

The European Union is rather inactive from the perspective of settlement of regional conflicts. After the war between Nagorno Kharabakh and Azerbaijan, Armenia took the role of guarantor of the security of Nagorno Kharabakh and is currently negotiating with Azerbaijan to establish peace. The negotiations are officially conducted through the Minsk Group chaired by Russia, USA and France. Although the European Union stresses its impartial position through political announcements, various resolutions and individual contacts with the officials, however, it avoids or cannot take measures to find real solutions. It would be desirable that the EU follows the example of the USA and provides financial support to Nagorno Kharabakh and takes a greater role in the negotiations process. On the other hand, the EU should include the people of Nagorno Karabakh in its projects, for example the Civil Society Forum of Eastern Partnership.

Viktor Yengibaryan, President, Council of the International European Movement in Armenia

In terms of democracy, human rights, good governance and stability, the initiation of Civil Society Forums within framework of Eastern Partnership and recommendations outlined by the working groups offered a good opportunity for the active involvement of civil society organizations in the process of identifying and monitoring the main obstacles as well as elaborating policy initiatives, among others, in the sphere of human rights.

The enforcement of international human rights standards is the cornerstone of cooperation between Armenia, Azerbiajan, Georgia and European Union. Eastern Partnership offers civil society organizations and advocacy groups specific mechanisms to continue elevating and mainstreaming basic human rights standards with the multilateral cooperation. Their involvement is crucial as it is a truism that the exclusive “top-down” model of legal reforms aiming at harmonization the sphere with European one will always have limited success and legitimacy. The continuing efforts of rising awareness of a wider public on human rights issues is critical; However, there are greater impediments for advocacy organizations in fostering civil rights, freedoms and protections of groups of individuals marginalized on the basis of their (ethnic, religious or gender) identity or identities. The eradication of misogyny, sexism, gender-based violence, religious intolerance and fundamentalism, homophobia and transphobia are as limited as the influence of grassroot movements that are yet to gain substantial influence to spark and engage in the civil debates as well as to litigate respective rights. While all of the South Caucasus countries are on their way, – and sometimes hesitant – to implement specific mechanisms to comply with the articles of international declarations and conventions prohibiting discrimination and incitement of hostility, vulnerable groups continue to be victimized by the hate speech and hate crimes that are constantly neglected.

Regulating hate speech has a direct implication on limiting freedom of speech, specifically the kind of speech and freedom of expression that are not usually protected in majority of EU member countries. Democratic transitions in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are marked with post-totalitarian legacy shared among these societies. Considering
●    a number of similarities in obstacles to human rights mainstreaming and development of democratic culture of tolerance in South Caucasus countries
●    incessant victimization of groups under the threat of discrimination and violence
●    Limitedness of SCO efforts to challenge incitement of intolerance and hostility to vulnerable groups
it would advisable to offer discussion on this matter for the panel to share information as well as good practices and specific experiences.

Shota Khinchagashvili
Board Chair, Diversity Research and Community Activism Association
Tbilisi, Georgia

Характерными чертами развития демократического общества в Украине являются следующие:

1. В настоящее время население страны не в полной мере привлекается в деятельность общественных организаций. Общественные организации в стране не имеют широко развитой социальной, организационной и экономической базы.

2. Происходит заметная активизация демократических преобразований в стране путем создания  Общественных Советов.  В настоящее время эти органы действуют на уровне министерств, областных администраций и местном уровне (города и районы).  Основными проблемами в развитии общественных органов являются в настоящее время следующие:

излишняя политизация этих органов;

недостаточная мотивация работы в этих органов со стороны общественных организаций;

недостаточный уровень квалификации членов советов;

недоверие к компетентности решений советов со стороны властей;

нехватка информации для работы общественных органов. Следует отметить, что (с 10.05.2011 г.   в Украине действует Закон Украины «О доступе к публичной информации». Однако на практике, положения  этого Закона не выполняются. Только начинают разрабатываться нормативно-правовые основы для проведения общественного мониторинга и экспертизы принимаемых управленческих решений  на национальном, региональном, местном уровнях.

3. Большой интерес вызывает  разработка концепций целевых программ по содействию развитию гражданского общества. Один из первых таких проектов был разработан в  Донецкой области.

4. В Украине разрабатывается нормативно-правовая база для внедрения системы социального  заказа со стороны органов власти общественным организаций (разработан проект специального Закона, который позволит сделать процедуру и механизм социального заказа более открытым, прозрачным).

5. Учеными и практиками проводятся обучения общественных активистов и активных членов территориальных общин по вопросам принятия управленческих решений. Активизировались научные исследования в области изучения взаимосвязи общественности и органов власти. Так, в Донбасской национальной академии строительства и архитектуры работает группа ученых, которые активно занимаются этимс проблемами. Ими выпущено несколько монографий по проблемам взаимосвязи разных групп общественности (членов территориальных общин, представителей общественных организаций,  предпринимателей и т.д.) с    региональными и местными органами власти и местного самоуправления.

Библиография

1. . Взаємодія органів місцевого самоврядування і громадськості: Моногрaфия/ Л.В.Беззубко, А.А.Стойка, Кольцова Д.В. та ін.-  Донецьк: Норд комп’ютер, 2006. – 202 с.

2. Взаємодія громадських організацій, місцевої влади та підприємців: Монография/ Л.В.Беззубко, О.В.Долгальова, О.В.Балабенко  та ін.-  Донецьк: Норд комп’ютер, 2007. – 300 с.

3. Беззубко Л.В., Скопець О.В. Громада і органи місцевого самоврядування: монография. – Донецьк: Норд- компьютер, 2007.- 202 с.

4. Беззубко Л.В..Псарьов Г.Ю., Скопець О.В.  Проблеми взаємодії місцевої влади та територіальної громади: монографія . –  Донецьк: СПД Купріянов В.С., 2009 .- 334 с.

Будем рады установлению научных контактов с учеными и практиками из других стран, работающих  по проблемам осуществления демократических преобразований в постсоветских странах).

Адрес для контактов: профессор  кафедры «Менеджмент организаций» Донбасской национальной академии строительства и архитектуры, доктор наук по государственному управлению Беззубко Лариса Владимировна

Адрес для переписки : Украина 86157 г. Макеевка , ул. Ленина дом 71 кв. 12.

Ел. Адрес: bezzubkol@mail.ru