School for Political Leaders of Eastern Partnership 2013
Coordination: Elena Zhminko Translation and editing: Katarzyna Kowalczyk – English language TexteM Biuro tłumaczeń Translators: Dorota Pawałowska, Maryja Łucewicz-Napałkow – Ukranian language Giorgi Komoshvili – Georgian language Ioan Polaczek – Romanian language
Editors: dr Anna Konieczna-Purchała – Polish language dr Bella Tateshvili – Georgian language Laurentia Jadachowska – Romanian language dr Svitlana Romaniuk – Ukranian language
Layout: Kotbury.pl Photos: Beata Czarnecka Copyright by Stowarzyszenie Szkoła Liderów Reproduction and use for non-commercial purposes is permitted provided the source. The opinions and information it contains do not necessarily reflect the position of the School for Leaders. The project is co-financed by the “Support for Democracy” Polish development cooperation programme of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland and the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw with cooperation of European Dialogue Society from Ukraine, Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy – Georgia Representation from Georgia, National Youth Council of Moldova – CNTM from Republic of Moldova and Analytical Centre on Globalization and Regional Cooperation (ACGRC) from Armenia.
ISBN 978–83–939043–2–7 Warsaw 2013 Stowarzyszenie Szkoła Liderów Wiejska str. 12A, 00–490 Warsaw Tel. 22 556 82 50 Faks 22 556 82 51 firstname.lastname@example.org www.szkola-liderow.pl
Dear Readers, We pass into your hands this paper, which has come to being as a result of actions taken as part of the first edition of the program School for Political Leaders of Eastern Partnership Countries 2013. For 17 years the School has, through education of leaders behind our eastern border, supported democratic processes and the development of civic society in the countries of the former Soviet Union. We focus particularly on the countries invited by the European Union to participate in the East Partnership project – countries, which used to be described in Europe as undergoing systemic transformation, but which have now grown out of this notion. Some of them take steps towards integration with Europe while some – as it would seem – head in reverse direction. The project embraced two sessions – in Ukraine (28th of June – 5th of July 2013) and in Poland (22nd – 28th of September 2013). 24 leaders from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine attended workshops, training sessions developing leadership skills and meetings with politicians, social activists and public authorities, whereby they were creating space for cooperation in the region and exchanging experience concerning public activity in their countries. School for Political Leaders of Eastern Partnership Countries responds to the need for reflection over the nature and the future of East Partnership. This paper includes selected texts written by the participants, which are the result of such reflection in the context of their respective countries. Of one thing we can be certain – passing on Poland’s experience as a country with citizens directly involved in constructing democracy will eventually result in true institutional changes in countries close to us not only due to their neighboring location but also due to their historical and spiritual heritage. This program would never have been realized without the support and contribution of our partners from the East Partnership.
Perspectives of the Eastern Partnership and dialogue in the region
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened for the countries of the former socialist block, as well as for those, which used to be under influence of the Soviet Union, an entirely new perspective of entering the EU. Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic countries and later Romania and Bulgaria entered the EU. This way, since 2008, the EU borders with the Republic of Moldova. Aiming at further expansion of the EU borders in December 2008, the European Committee proposed to create Eastern Partnership, which was supposed to embrace 6 countries of the Eastern Europe (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine). The basic principle of this new initiative was to ensure the maximum of possibilities for reform in each country within the Partnership, in the light of their current political and economic reality. In May 2009 in Prague, East Partnership was launched, with the ambitious goal of implementing political association and eco-
Nicolae Arnaut Project HSSAP (Ministry of Health) financed by World Bank Republic of Moldova e-mail: Narnaut@mail.ru
â€œEurope will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.â€? This sentence was said on May 9, 1950 by Robert Schuman, one of the founding fathers of the European Union. It has become a symbolic motto of constant widening of the European space and consolidation of the great European family. This consolidation resulted in time in lessening geographic distance and expansion of the EU towards the East, thus making a geopolitical division between two superpowers: Russia and the European Union.
nomic integration between the EU and its Eastern partners. It required new association agreements, embracing widely understood free trade and gradual integration with the EU economy. The aim was to facilitate travelling to the EU through gradual liberalization of the visa travel, which was to be accompanied by means to fight illegal migration. To meet new demands regarding the cooperation, 600 million euro were granted for the years 2010–2013, including 350 million for new funds. Two years after the launch of the EaP, the results of its activity were not satisfactory. Bringing Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine closer to the UE could be measured only in millimeters, instead of the expected meters. There has been a regress of democracy, possibility for liberalization of the visa travel was only vaguely outlined and, in addition, the influences of Russia became apparent. Such was the summary of the two-year-long existence of the East Partnership. It is a project, which is supposed to be a bridge linking the UE with six former soviet republics. The confirmation of the above statement is also the declaration of the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek. He devoted much
attention to the situation in Belarus and Ukraine, while, during the Summit, the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko was still under accusation of the abuse of powers.” On no account should we be proud of the present achievements. On the contrary, we should be critical of it, as we witnessed the regress in the development of democracy, human rights and state of law in some of these countries”, stated the President of the European Union. Perhaps it was only a coincidence, but the Polish weekly magazine Polityka published on the day of the Summit’s eve wrote: “The member countries of the EaP are not in good condition. In Belarus, after a short rest, Lukashenka has returned to dictatorship methods towards his opponents, thus breaking bonds with Europe. In Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev ensured himself life-long presidency, inherited from his father. Armenia follows the path of putinism. In Georgia, Saakashvili has squandered the democratic gain of the Rose Revolution. In Ukraine, Yulia Tymoshenko remains arrested and at the mercy of judges subjected to pro-Russian president”. In Moldova, seemingly” the best student in the group”, the echo of the Transnistrian conflict and the problems of the young democracy made the pace of development remarkably slow. Returning to the achievements of the Summit, the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet wrote:” This forum was not able to convince East European countries to take up reforms in exchange for the promise of entering the EU”. The Stockholm daily put forward the notion that the EU should have” directly attracted” the citizens with cheap and uncomplicated visa procedures and granting help for civic society. The years 2010– 2013 were supposed to be an important, however difficult, period for the EaP countries, especially regarding their intention to introduce a range of reforms according to the standards and requirements of the EU. All this with but a vague promise of the liberalization of visa restrictions on one side, and constant or even growing influence of Russia in this area on the other. This influence, as it appears, had its results during the summit in Vilnius. Under Russia’s pressure, Armenia was the first to drop out from the project Vilnius 2013 (3rd of September). Under the same pressure, Ukraine pulled back from taking part on 21st of November, followed by Azerbaijan in the 25th of November. Among six candidates to joining the EU (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine) there remained only the Republic of Moldova and Georgia. Even though both states received the highest notes, only Georgia introduced perceivable reforms in the area of economy and state’s development. The most apparent reform was the fight against corruption. According to Transparency International, the corruption rate in Georgia fell, and Georgia moved to position 55 in 2013, compared to place 99 from 2006.
Moldova, which was noted 79 in 2006, faces clear regress, as it takes position 102 in 2013. The situation is no better in the other EaP countries. In 2013 Ukraine takes position no 144, Armenia – 94, Azerbaijaan – 127, Belarus – 123. Initialing the Association Agreement with the European Union is undoubtedly a great achievement of the present government in Chișinău and Tbilisi, and incites to form opinions and analyses on the post-Vilnius period. A worring accent in some commentaries is the repeating statement concerning “a block of salt”. Namely: Moldova was accepted by the Europeans without having its homework properly done. Instead of fighting corruption, it was often concealed, and additionally there are sanctions to be expected on Moscow’s side. Skepticism can hardly be avoided in a society like ours, more prone to disappointment than to enlivenment by simple enthusiasm. Metaphorically speaking, Moldova, as a result of a rather unpredictable only a few days ago geopolitical game, is currently becoming the main flower in the bouquet of the Eastern Partnership – the Ukrainian peony faded after the first wave of Russian frost in November. Therefore, Moldova is now the subject of great expectations. European administration will need to point at Moldova without forgetting about
Ukraine (where the case is not yet settled), with greater attention and generosity. We can benefit from this economic situation. Most importantly, the inclination towards the integration with the EU must continue to prevail among the authorities in Chișinău and in the moods of bessarabian society. The European Union shall become stricter with Russia – what is confirmed by the reaction of Poland, expressed by the Polish President Komorowski. In an interview for the daily paper Gazeta Wyborcza, he stated that the unacceptable blackmail with regard to Ukraine should raise more alarm as to Russia’s activity in this area. For Moldova and Georgia the step of initialing the Association Agreement with the EU is undoubtedly a success, but it was more of a geostrategic meaning and was taken as a result of geopolitical race between the U.S.A and the EU on one side and Russia on the other, stressing again that it did not happen in the foreground of a series of noticeable reforms in the development of the country but in the foreground of incessant European aspirations and the will to oppose Russia. Europe appreciated the effort to become Europeans and was generous towards Moldova, perhaps even too generous, since Europe means also fight against corruption, attracting foreign investors, fair competition, transparency in decision-making, respect for human rights etc. The European reforms in the Republic of Moldova remain unintroduced, there is only corruption and poverty, lack of vision und will to solve internal affairs. The European Union shall closely analyze all steps taken by Moldova and Georgia, but also by Ukraine, which still has a chance to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, while the fight against corruption remains the main goal.” Six member statesof the Eastern Partnership were diverse from the very beginning but now, after the Summit in Vilnius, the differences between them have become even deeper” – remarked the Estonian minister of the foreign affairs. According to him, the EU should continue its activities but take into consideration the differences between the EaP states: on the one side Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, on the other Belarus and Azerbaijan and somewhere in between Armenia and Ukraine.” Should we not pay closer attention to the current affairs, before the introduction of some changes?” – asked rhetorically Urmas Paet. His view is that” there is a need to prepare programs specific for each of these countries, resulting from their aspirations, from what they would like to achieve individually within their own internal development”. The European future of these countries depends mainly on their own actions, their willingness to become Europeans and their determination to introduce deep reforms in their societies. Then the success of EaP shall be achieved shortly, regardless of the barriers set up by Russia.
The participation of women in political life and in civic activities An example from Georgia
Natia Ubilava Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) Georgia e-mail: email@example.com
Gender equality in political processes is the fundamental aspect of modern democracy. According to international standards, women should have equal rights and opportunities to be involved in political processes as men – in all aspects and on each level. To actually achieve this, it is necessary fight against adversities, as the participation of women in the political processes is still very small. The aim of this article is to analyze the present level of women’s involvement in the political life in Georgia. The article points also at the main obstacles faced by the women entering political life and includes a number of strategies helpful by overcoming this problem.
Participation in public life, especially in politics, is one of the indices of democracy in a given country. Throughout the world, women were actively involved in setting democratic standards and various, even most dangerous actions of fight against authoritarian regimes. The participation of women was significant even in the street protests organized on behalf of demands to gain independence from the Soviet Union (Sabedashvili, 2007) and in protests before the Rose Revolution or protests organized in October and November 2007. Women’s’ activity in social life in Georgia is a historical reality. Even today many women take part in pre-election activities. The problem is not in the poor participation of women, but in the lack of agreement on the side of the existent authorities on the women’s’ activities and affairs, in actions of decision-making bodies and in the general underrepresentation of women within those bodies. Georgian legal acts grant men and women equal rights to vote. During the poll, they are equally active, both in cities and in the countryside. To be sure, this balance is still far from desirable level, with regard to who is elected on a given level of governance. One can state that the participation of women in politics and in decisionmaking processes is limited and remains far behind compared to the standard set by the UN (30%). One of the eight millennium development goals set on September 8, 2000 in New York, signed also by Georgia, was to be realized by 2015. According to these goals, men and women were supposed to have equal rights in issues related to politics and governance in actions on all levels. In Georgia in recent years, there has been some progress in reaching gender equality. However, there are but few women occupying important decision-making posts, post-election positions and posts in state bodies. According to the gender inequality rating, Georgia occupies the 71st place among 137 countries1. It is more difficult for women to gain position in the parliament, even though the elections offer great opportunity to position women as leaders (what is the postulate of democratic governing and is indispensable for realization of equal and general voting rights). During the last decade, the proportion of women in the parliament has never exceeded 10% (years 1991–2008). In this time, in the most important legislative body in Georgia, the highest rate of women’s’ participation was 9.4% (in 2003) and the lowest – 5% (in 2008).At the moment, after the elections in 1
“Gender equality in Georgia on the Bases of International Indices and Ratings” N. Bendeliani. CSS 2012
2012, the participation of women increased to 10.8%: among 150 deputies there are 17 women. With this result Georgia occupies 105. place in general world classification but among the OSCE countries it takes one of the last places and reveals huge discrepancy from the average rate for the OSCE member states. (23.6%).2 The participation of women in elections is also unimpressive. During the 2012 elections, women constituted only 28% of the overall number of candidates. According to the report prepared by OSCE observation mission concerning parliament elections: â€œit is necessary to take further steps in order to reach gender equality in the legislative bodyâ€?.3
Despite some progress in the form of legislative initiatives, the number of women in decision-making bodies dropped after each elections, After local elections in 1998 this was 14 % but in 2002 it was only 12 %. During the elections in October 2006, among the candidates on the lists there was only 11.14 % women. This rate did not improve even after the elections â€“ women constituted 11% among the newly elected local authorities. Executive bodies also see but small number of women. In August 2012, among 19 ministers there were only 5 women. At the moment, among 20 ministers there are only 3 women, so their participation in the government has in fact decreased. Promotion of more active participation of women in political life should be a statutory requirement. In 2012 a change was introduced in Georgian act on political parties, granting financial benefits for political parties to improve gender equality. According to the new regulations, each political party presenting 2 women among ten candidates from their list would increase its donations from the state budget 2 3
http://www.osce.org/odihr/78432 Report issued by the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE on election to the parliament in Georgia in 2012
Small participation of women in public and political life in Georgia is a problem. Therefore, it is necessary to support by regulations their greater activity in this area. This responsibility lies also on political parties and the whole civic society. In relation to that, recommendations as to particular solutions are as follows: • O rdering legal framework: regulations in Georgia need amendments, to ensure greater participation of women in political life and to create equal opportunities for men and women. It is possible by setting quotas in election laws. International experience shows that the countries which introduced quotas were two times more efficient in the issue of electing women.
by 10%. This regulation brought no material change during the parliamentary elections in 2012, as most entities taking part in them presented lists without taking into consideration the issue of gender equality. It was done only by 6 out of 15 registered entities. Georgian labor code provides no regulations for protection of women in their workplace. Georgian society has no one fixed approach towards women’s’ engagement in public and political life. The study conducted in 2013 as part of development program of the UN4 reveals that half of Georgian population believes greater engagement of women in public and political life will prove beneficial for the country. However, it is worth to indicate that most of the society believes politics to be a male domain and thinks that women’s’ participation should be limited. According to the majority of population (61%) men are better leaders than women. Most people base their views on stereotypes concerning the nature of women and thus explains why politics is better to be left to men. On the other hand, the interest and motivation of women to become more involved in politics, are still quite low. The reason for that are social conditions, political environment and patriarchal social relations.
• P olitical parties are an important instrument in the promotion of women in politics, which is why regulations within the parties should ensure greater engagement of women in parties’ life. However, parties do not show the required effort to promote women. It is revealed e.g. by the fact that among 16 elective entities, only 6 presented party lists considering norms on gender equality. • I ncrease in public awareness: this increase as to the issue of maintaining gender equality is directly linked to the increase in the women’s’ engagement. • I t is necessary to create a consolidate, organized and wide movement, which would aim at informing the society and would inform women about issues important for their participation in political and public life. • D espite some progress in the area of greater women’s engagement, the situation in Georgia so far implies low level of women’s’ participation in decision-making processes and in political life. The necessary condition for increase in women’s’ participation in the public life is the introduction by the state the policy promoting women’s’ activity in this area.
Gender equality in political life in bodies shaped by elections is one of the main principles of democracy. The underrepresentation of women in this bodies is harmful both for the quality of public discussion and for the efficiency of the institutions. 4
“Society’s approach toward gender equality in politics and business” ACT, UNDP Georgia, 2013
(How) can we influence the politicians, without becoming politicians
Firstly, journalists attempt to make a change of reality. They try to influence mentality of people, their way of thinking. They try to wake people up, encourage them to act, to change reality, in which they live, for the better. The problem is that in the Republic of Moldova the media are not completely independent. This makes the noble goal of changing the citizens’ thinking (so they would strive for achieving good things) is disfigured and people are often subjected to manipulation. Secondly, one can influence the politics by active engagement on behalf of nongovernment organizations. The NGO sector could create lobbing possibilities, consultations, which in turn could lead to changes in politics. According to the report Freedom House – Nations in Transition 2013, in 2012 in the Republic of Moldova there were registered 8200 NGOs but only one half of them can show some actual activity. Another problem is their too great concentration in the capital city, with 65% of all NGOs. Despite that, the non-governmental sector remains an important source of new and creative human resources for politics. Persons with NGO background and experience are better at putting forward initiatives and new ideas beneficial for the society.
Cristina Avram Institute for Development and Social Initiatives (IDIS) “Viitorul” Republic of Moldova e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Being a politician in the Republic of Moldova consists mainly of protecting your own rights or the rights of some small group. The way to the top is long and hard and gaining politically high position is often based on large sums of money, coming from very diverse sources. If you are not a politician, your chances for maintaining power or influences are very small. Still, persistent work and striving towards making a change can really bring that change, even in the country, where the discrepancies between average citizens and politicians remain significant.
Being an ordinary citizen, it is much more difficult to influence politics. Still, active persons, willing to devote some time and energy for a noble purpose have certain possibilities to make themselves heardâ€? on the topâ€?. One of such possibilities is writing a blog. The more the blog attracts readers sharing similar views, the greater will be its influence. With the assistance of the social media there were organized meetings of politicians with bloggers and the most popular among them expressed their views. Politics is the ground, on which there are clashes of differing business interests. The general reason of state is just a pretext to realize particular goals of particular groups. Politicians often focus on particular tasks, which they believe to be the most important, and by these tasks they win subsequent elections or hope to be elected for the next term. Such situation took place also in the Republic of Moldova, where signing the Association Agreement granted the current government the victory in the next elections, even though they did not introduce changes in other areas. Still, you do not need to be a politician to make a difference. Sometimes remaining outside the politics allows to better see the nature of problems and to propose better solutions. Most important issue is to find effective means to influence and express opinions in such a way, to convince the society that their realization is possible. In the fight with politicians, the main weapon is the will and the initiative!
The role of Ukraine in the European security architecture Victoria Vdovychenko / PHD Candidate, DIplomatic Academy of Ukraine / Teaching Fellow, Department of International Economics and Management, Kyiv National Economic University / Ukraine e-mail: email@example.com
The creation of the European security architecture is one of the most important events of the twentieth century, which was the result of a desire to unite nationstates as well as a number of circumstances and factors: Germany reunification and Soviet Unionâ€?s collapse. We were evidencing the fact that NATO started to play on the multilateral platform while OSCE lost its central role being originally envisaged for it. At the same time, Europe initiated advocacy towards its own security and defense system development. However, over the two decades, this existing order is under revision again.
The debate at the beginning of the XXI century about Europe”s security has received a new impetus since Russian Federation”s diverging views with NATO and EU on the evolution of the countries of the “common neighborhood” such as Ukraine. This research is aimed at analyzing European security architecture as well as Ukraine”s role and place in it. Such an analysis is important due to the fact that the security assurance of all spheres of life raised its visibility at the beginning of the XXI century. The research is representing an attempt to focus on external and internal benchmark of Ukraine”s challenges and opportunities in the European security system.
Where are we now? Domestic Context of Ukrainian Policy Undoubtedly, our country might be characterizes as a main factor in the overall European security and economic architecture. After the USSR dissolution, Ukraine proved to become a real subject in global geopolitics. Being a non-aligned country, it creates a stabilizing geographical space between Russia on one side and EU on the other. However, despite huge potential for a long-term prosperity, Ukraine remains even now one of the most complicated geopolitical areas being at the same time extremely vulnerable to emerging security threats at the beginning of the XXI century.
security. Together, the management, supply and delivery of these tools constitute the system of governance and its efficiency to be measured. The empowerment of these preconditions sets basis to create security helmet in the country. The construction of the security architecture of the state is regarded to be the central facet of the stabilization and state-building processes in especially such newly-born democracies as Ukraine. Paraphrasing Kant’s famous quotation, the link between security and good governance is to be vital since good governance helps to prevent conflicts and in such a way advocates for peace and prosperity. Being the monumental landmark for Ukrainian security, good governance should not remain a standalone concept. It is essential to understand that good governance can’t be limited only to its development pattern but should encompass all the sectors of human society. Creating transparent and accountable government is considered to be the most effective national strategy. However, its effect is minimal without confidence and trust building in the society. The effective political development of a country depends less on the immediate fulfillment of goals and reforms established by its democratic transformation and more on the methods in which the nation achieve its democracy.
What might be the reasons for such vulnerability? The answer lies in the peculiarity of the Ukrainian state-building in the 1990s. The actual Ukraine”s transition towards democratic and economic development has been determined by one internal malice which blocks all other attempts for prosperous future – lack of good governance. As a system of economic, equitable, just and citizen-caring tools Ukrainian good governance machine should have implications of being both responsible and accountable. Moreover, it has to be predicated upon mutual cooperation of government, civil society and private sector. The lack of cooperation within such a triangle represents a backbone of all the current disputes and controversies in Ukraine. The nature of these relationship and need to coordinate these interactions is to assume critical importance in the nearest future. The art of good governance measurement lies in ranking such public tools as rule of law, political freedoms, an access to economic activity, education, healthcare and
Where are all of us now? European Spectrum of Ukraineâ€™s importance for European security on cross-border cooperation Nowadays, our world becomes smaller and globalized while it remains more and more unstable. We are evidencing the rise of two controversial tendencies. From one side, the end of bipolar competition led to the appearance of new actors on the international stage: international organizations, NGOs and nonstate entities that are playing an active role in international relations. From the other side, while the risks of inter-state conflicts decreased, it marked the rise of new threats being taken insufficiently into account before. The most vivid factors of such instability are intra-state conflicts, international terrorism, extreme poverty, threat of weapons of mass destruction enriched by the general feeling of anxiety and insecurity. One of the issues to analyze is a cross-border cooperation in Europe. Similar to the state level on the supranational level we may observe that the process of greater penetration in the â€œfuzzyâ€? borders is accompanied by new over-whelming
challenges like drugs and human trafficking and finally terrorism which are turning to be more crucial in terms of value.
Eastern Partnership cooperation viewing it as a potential threat to its “strategic area of influence”.
Ukraine should be valuated as an important partner in resolving frozen conflicts of EU neighborhood. Our country has already been playing its mediator’s role since 1994 in the Transnistrian conflict resolution being the only frozen conflict located on the EU border. Ukraine was the country which initiated to develop a Transnistrian conflict resolution plan and EU Border Assistance Mission has been implementing it by providing necessary consultancies and trainings.
To my mind the key solution of EU-Ukraine security misunderstanding lies in believing in Eastern Partnership mechanism. Training and capacity-building are to be provided in the countries of “wider Europe” being crucial issues for the joint policies implementation. It will lead to the regions and states rapprochement in tackling the same challenges. In doing so disparities between and among the countries would diminish thriving to economic development and mutual political and cultural understanding.
The core issue in this respect hindering the cross-border understanding lies in the approaches each of the government is undertaking in order to overcome the problem. The vast array of governmental programs, regional planning efforts, cross-border task forces is viewing the way-out of dealing with the new challenges. However, a large number of such initiatives both from EU and Ukrainian side being well-intentioned are overlapping or performing the same task repetitively. It is due to the lack of over-whelming vision of how to trigger cross-border partnership platform and come to the common ground of understanding the ways of tackling the joint challenges. Primarily it concerns ENP countries, in particular Ukraine and other members of Eastern Partnership group. Some attempts should be made to consolidate cross-border dialogue into a set of uniform mechanisms that are used consistently in and outside the borders of the European Union. Moreover, it is worth recalling having political support from the policy and decision-makers in the national and EU governments on the facilitation of cross-border relationships. Ukraine might become one of the pioneers among Eastern neighbors in development and implementation of examples of good practices for further effective cross-border cooperation. However, there are some of the obstacles in constructing essential dialogue with the EU in security matters generally. Since 2005 Ukraine has had a privileged status under CSDP. It made attempts to align its security policy towards European in order to ensure peace on its territory together with other members of the EU. However, our country is still underestimated in terms of security influence in Europe. European Security Strategy determines Russia being a key actor for developing further strategic partnership regardless the fact that Russia denied to withdraw the troops from Transnistria still providing economic support for it. Moreover, the official Kremlin is criticizing
Where will we all be? Conclusion The pace of change for our common future will depend a lot on the pressure that people will be able to bring to the essential dialogue building between Ukraine and EU. Eastern Partnership will help to enhance alliance building also at the international political community level helping to overcome transnational threats and challenges. It will help to create a real security roof “from Vancouver to Vladivostok” promoted by NATO. The foundations of security order should be shared despite existing political and governmental disputes on EU-Ukraine level. Ukraine is having its geopolitical weight in enhancing dialogue between EU and Russia. Ukraine has already declared its aspirations to integrate into EU structures. With the Association Agreement to be signed between EU and Ukraine in a month, Ukraine will be more open to further security cooperation with Europe. We are already having good examples of EU-Ukraine cooperation under CSDP which might be enhanced by further security initiatives development. All these points are to be essentially focused on the national and EU community levels with the unanimous help of member states. Only in this case the security helmet will be a conciliatory way of promoting peace and stability in the world especially nowadays, in the challenging world, where traditional tools of public policy and diplomacy are inefficient.
#Euromaidan-2013: a civil society converged online Olga Boichak UNENGO “Mama-86” Ukraine e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The phenomenon of social networks’ proliferation over the last decade has added an additional dimension to the Internet. The US presidential election campaign of 2008 clearly demonstrated the impact social media have on politics. As it happens, social networks’ potential turned out to be a double-edged sword: five years ago, one used it to get to power; nowadays, it is being used by millions to overthrow the authorities. In all seriousness, the entire Euromaidan initiative began with a single Facebook post: immediately following the news of President Yanukovych’s decision to repudiate the Association Agreement with the EU, Mustafa Nayem (a popular blogger and journalist) wrote a status update inciting people to gather on the Independence square in Kyiv for a protest. The message went viral, got 1600 reposts, and gathered over 300 protesters in less than an hour. Before the dawn broke, thousands of peaceful demonstrants were rallying in downtown Kiev while other cities kicked in: from Lviv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk to Hamburg, Toronto and Washington, DC. Ukrainians all over the world have taken a stand against the establishment, their efforts united and catalyzed by the social media.
In the New Media Age, with new technologies fundamentally reshaping the media landscape, the basic function to inform and influence public opinion is no longer reserved for traditional sources. The advancements of Web 2.0 technologies have now made it possible to create and exchange user-generated content with global audiences online. The United Nations went so far as to pronounce internet access a human right, which, by providing an opportunity to exercise freedom of speech and expression, becomes an asset for democracy. In a repressive environment, when mainstream media find themselves under strict censorship or persecution, any new media that covers events from a different perspective or explicitly advocates social change gets a chance to challenge the status quo. It so happened that amidst the relentless fight defending its civilizational choice, Ukraine took benefit from one of the above-mentioned civilizational advancements, namely the social networks.
petitions were found circulating the web: from the most popular ones, such as a call for sanctions against President Yanukovych and government officials (gathered 100,000 signatures in 4 days), to more ambiguous ones, e.g. requests for a military intervention. In addition to petitioning, many internet users have effectively engaged social media to offer free legal advice or gather evidence to exonerate activists, beaten and imprisoned during police crackdowns. Social networks have largely contributed to successful locating of persons missing after the riots (all 30 individuals found and reunited with families). There has also been a tremendously efficient fundraising campaign to start an independent online channel, ‘Hromadske (Public) TV’: a startup venture that raised over 70,000 UAH (approx. $8,500) of daily donations, mainly owing to social networks. “Democracy only works when ordinary people claim it as their own” – an arguable statement by Bill Moyers coheres with Ukrainian reality, where civil society took a defiant stance against a corrupt government through massive grassroots activism. Social media not only let Ukraine acknowledge the affinity and ongoing support from the outside world, but also spread inspiration for the world’s oppressed. Now that the fourth estate has emerged as the fifth column, regardless of disinformation and chauvinistic propaganda from Kremlin, social media gave a 45-million nation a chance to win the struggle for democracy. Social platforms provide outstanding opportunities for multilateral interactions, wherefore they often find themselves embedded in various e-governance systems. In the context of Euromaidan, it would be fair to give credit to social networks for serving as a platform for civil self-organization and governance, by the agency of which a spontaneous civil unrest has evolved into a sustainable and effective military encampment. Some bloggers audaciously proclaim Euromaidan to be a reincarnation of the legendary Zaporizhzhya Sich – reinstating the long-forgotten Cossacks’ democratic legacy and national self-determination through the three centuries of subjugation. Ideology aside, Euromaidan has displayed a remarkable online-coordinated division of labor: defense squads, field cuisines, first aid, cleanup, accommodation, transportation and logistics, all volunteer-based. According to Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, of 50% of adult population with internet access, over half admit to social networking. We might plausibly conclude that, by providing users with a multitude of opportunities to express their opinion on pressing matters, social media gave a boost to citizen journalism. Likewise, due to the abundance of petition tools available online, all sorts of
P.S. Feel free to REPOST
The source of Euromaidan: an own view
February 2011. Puerto Rico. During the protests the police arrested and injured several dozens of students. The lecturers and associates ran a two-day strike. Only three days passed in peace. The situation was ignited after reducing the budged of one university, which meant introducing 800 dollar fees for the students and over 50% increase of costs. August 2011. Chile, under the rule of Pinochet, was one of the most stable countries of the South America. In Santiago and many other cities, thousands of pupils and students gathered in the streets, protesting and demanding radical reforms in the system of education. Over 900 people were arrested, in the riots suffered also about 100 policemen.
Europe 2009–2013 Anna Lysenko Parliamentary Development Program for Ukraine II Ukraine e-mail: email@example.com
The world 2010–2013 December 2010. After the first protests in Tunisia, the citizens of over 15 countries participated in the Arab spring, protesting against their governments. This led to the dismissal of the leaders, national uprisings and protests on large scale in the whole Arab world, as well as to civil war in Syria. September 2011. New York sees the beginning of the new Occupy movement, which was joined by thousands of people (describing themselves as “99%”), to fight against inequalities of the present global financial system, bringing profits only to 1% of the globe’s inhabitants. In 2012, the protest around the world involved almost a thousand of cities, in which the activists were arrested, attacked with the pepper gas or beaten.
Summer 2009. Iceland. For the first time during the last fifty years, the police used tear gas against the protesters who led fierce mass anti-government protests. According to the activists, the government led once blooming Iceland to the economic slump. Autumn 2009. During the greatest wave of protests against inequalities in education system of Germany and Austria, the students occupied several lecture halls. Police intervention, weeks of negotiations, even blocking food supplies – this way the authorities tried to disarm the situation and solve the problem. Spring 2011. Due to the high level of unemployment among the Spanish youth (over 40%), there were mass protests all over the country. During five months, 6 to 8.5 million people took part in them. Winter 2013. Over 15% of the inhabitants of Bavaria gathered in the city hall and waited for hours in long queues to sign the petition for referendum on resigning from the fees for studies at universities. In this initiative, there participated over 1.3 million persons. These were mostly students, who managed to persuade middleaged and elderly persons to join in their protest. This list could easily be continued.
Ukraine 2013 November–December 2013. On December 1, 2013 over 800 thousand Ukrainians went out into the central streets of Kiev. Most of them were students and young activists from different regions of the country. A large scale peaceful manifestation – Euromaidan, supporting the direction of geopolitical and economic European integration of Ukraine – has turned overnight into mass protest action. During following days, just like campfires, there appeared on the map of Ukraine the next, regional Euromaidans. By analyzing the world dynamics of mass youth movements defending their rights in the recent five years, it became apparent to me that the Ukrainian Euromaidan, which was first perceived as a peaceful event “for” something, was from the very beginning an event “against”. But against what? The above examples illustrate that the modern youth, regardless of their country of origin, confession, political views (which, in most cases, are of subjective character) can and is ready to fight for its rights and beliefs. What seemed almost unthinkable ten years ago, became a yearly tradition: large groups of youth gather together and profess their opinions, even at the cost of their life and health. Does this mean that the young around the world begin to believe again; believe in their own ideas, rights and abilities to change the entire system? I am truly convinced that these young people are driven by something more than just bravery and craving for strong experience, to be remembered for the rest of their lives.
Why the arguments of politicians, economists, financial experts, claiming there was no possibility for Ukraine as a state to sign the association agreement, did not appeal to the Ukrainian youth, which still, day and night, remains on Euromaidan? The young do not wish to hear the arguments “against”. They want to hear guarantees that their country will be governed by good and efficient law, not the lack of it. However, nobody can guarantee this: neither the Ukrainian government, nor the European Union, nor the Russian Federation. Euromaidan consists not of “crazy students, who have nothing better to do”, but students and recent graduates of Ukrainian universities: lawyers, economists, managers and others who either concluded they stand no chance on global work market or find that in their mother-tongue they would be forced to participate in a rat race in post soviet conditions, soft-soaping the current decision-makers, or, by being the best in the competitions, are not ready and do not wish to engage themselves in the present difficult and uncertain conditions. December 2013. The issue of Euromaidan as a nationwide Ukrainian protest is not about supporting the policy of European integration, or about rejecting Russia as a strategic partner. It also is not a political provocation or action in support of the Ukrainian opposition. It reveals the lack of trust towards those in power today and those who used to live where “everything was decided without them”, while in the 1990s they decided their fate in a much more violent and barbaric way that what is attempted by the Ukrainian youth today.
The lack of perspectives and fear of the future constitute the main power of Euromaidan and several similar maidans around the world during the last 5 years. There are only different people on the top. When I ask my parents or people from their generation what were their feelings and desires when they were my age (I am 23), they respond in unison: “We lived quietly, everything was decided about without us”. Everything was decided about without us – these words amazed me. How was this possible? I cannot recall a day spent in Ukraine, when something was decided without me, while this was the way they lived, being 23 (the crisis after the fall of the Soviet Union took place when they were 25–30 and already had children). This is the origin of clashes between our generations: in their youth they lived in abstract “there”, where everything was decided upon without them, while we live in very real “here”, where nothing has been decided about. The result: Ukrainian youth today learns how to decide as it can, as it was taught by its own experience and time.
The EaP Vilnius Summit: the way ahead or what’s next? Kristine Hovsepyan “European Integration” NGO Armenia e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The 3rd Vilnius Summit in November 2013 was a significant opportunity to sum up the cooperation between the European Union and Eastern Partners. The Summit was called to finalize the EaP partners’ first concrete achievements and move forward the cooperation. Vilnius findings might become an important milestone in the long-term prospects for the Eastern Partnership evaluation and modernization. Generally these two components will generally determine not only the Vilnius summit, but also the overall success of the Eastern Partnership policy. Despite other developments in a broder context of integration processes the Eastern Partnership can help anchor the partners’ future in an expanded European structure. It’s of utmost importance to realize to what extent the Vilnius Summit could shape the practical form of the Eastern Partnership’s so called “theoretical” success. The separate summary of the respective cooperation spheres might allow us to create an understandable structure in the process of landmark achievements, shortcomings and comprehensive picture of the expectations. While recognizing and welcoming the progress that has been made before, the EaP countries also recall that much remains to be done to tackle the persisting challenges posed to democracy, the respect for fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. In this regard, Summit participants underline that progress on respect for those common values will be essential notably through strengthening the efficiency and independence of the judiciary; effectively tackling corruption; and implementing public administration reform. Indeed the Prague Summit in May 2009 launched a strategic and ambitious Eastern Partnership, as a specific dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy, to further support the sustainable reform processes of all Eastern European countries, States participating in the Eastern Partnership, with a view to accelerating the political association and economic integration of interested partners with the European Union (EU). It would be improper to state that the Vilnius Summit will bring absolutely new agenda to the table. The guiding principles for the Eastern Partnership are generally agreed upon in Prague and Warsaw. The participants of the Vilnius Summit in effect re-confirmed their commitment to implement them fully. Overall the EaP participants agreed the general political guidelines for the Partnership in 2014–15. The Summit declaration, together with the new Association Agendas and other existing and future documents guiding bilateral relations and Work Programmes
of the multilateral Platforms, will constitute a clear plan of action for the Eastern Partnership in 2014–15.
The goals set by the participants of the Vilnius Summit which are to be attained by the Partnership by 2015 among others include:
When it comes to Armenia it’s worth to state that the EU and Armenia have reconfirmed their commitment to further develop and strengthen their cooperation in all areas of mutual interest within the Eastern Partnership framework, stressing the importance of reviewing and updating the existing basis of their relations. In the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership, the Summit participants reaffirmed the sovereign right of each partner freely to choose the level of ambition and the goals to which it aspires in its relations with the European Union.
• F urther strengthening the multilateral dimension of the Eastern Partnership;
It’s essential to realize that while emphasizing the importance of developing strong ties between the EU and the Eastern European countries, the Summit participants themselves should move forward achieving closer cooperation to ensure stability and prosperity on the European continent. The resolution of conflicts, building trust and good neighbourly relations are essential to economic and social development and cooperation in the broader region and especially the South Caucasus.
• S eeking further regulatory approximation in all transport areas and implementing transport infrastructure projects, along the Eastern Partnership transport network through existing EU programmes and instruments, seeking closer involvement of European and International Financial Institutions and prioritizing projects that improve connections with the TEN-T core network; • P romoting and strengthening visible and effective multilateral Flagship Initiatives including where appropriate combining policy dialogue and support for infrastructure. Now we can state that the gainful implementation of these goals beforehand could straiten the probability of the outburst of the situation in the South Caucasus region full of several challenges, including the so-called “frozen” conflicts. The above mentioned goals signify the main areas that could shape the fruitful collaboration within the EaP countries, the basic urgent needs for these countries.
When it comes to a broader integration vectors and processes the implementation of above mentioned goals might complement the “both…and” option recently declared and applied by the Republic of Armenia, as well as application of the “efficiency” thesis in the economic integration dimension. Undoubtedly, the partners of the Republic of Armenia acknowledge the specific situation of the RA with maximum implementation of the so-called “both…and” formula and cast no doubt on the possibility of its implementation. From this point of view the comprehensive reforms implemented and still expected through further cooperation both in the framework of the Eastern Partnership (as well as the Eastern Neighbourhood Policy) and through direct EU-EaP countries might bring their greater contribution to the further promotion of the European values in the region. The observation of the EaP Vilnius milestone is remarkable because it first and foremost comes to prove that the European Union itself must take greater advantage of an historic opportunity in the EaP area especially in the South Caucasus. The EU’s democratic standards and wealth are appealing beacons. Closer EU ties will bring more freedom in dealing with other partners. Simultaneously it is also up to each EaP participating state to seize the opportunities created by the dialogue and negotiations to build the foundations for a more secure and prosperous future.
Reflectionsâ€Ś Lia Imerlishvili Centers for Civic Engagement (USAID Contractor) Management Systems International Georgia e-mail: email@example.com
For me it was a great and very important opportunity to participate in this School for Political Leaders of Eastern Partnership for few reasons. In my duties at the CCE project in a town of Telavi, I have regular interaction with politicians and with active members of society. This interaction allows me to be fully involved and aware of the political developments, problems and civic society engagement challenges in my community. By participating in the School, I learned about the similar problems faced by other country representatives in their communities. It was of utmost importance to have learnt about their role and participation in their communityâ€™s development through politics and/or civic activism.
Since all of the participants share the same Soviet past, our community problems are also very similar and we are and will be facing the similar challenges in future and thus, sharing experiences and strategies for progress is crucial for our future. Our Counties are gradually becoming more democratic and are aspiring to join the European Union. As youth, were interested and obliged in helping our countries in this process. Of course we are not politicians and we donâ€™t have a direct impact on political decisions but we can nevertheless influence and change some attitudes in our small communities. All participants were very motivated to learn more about European values since we all understand that without democratic dialogue, without listening to each other, and without being more actively involved in political processes, future will be harder for our countries. During the project there were very interesting workshops, meetings, training sessions, debates. We had lifetime opportunities to meet experts, politicians, CSO rep
resentatives and opinion leaders in Kiev and in Warsaw. Listening to experts about what are they doing in their country to progress democratically and to better protect human rights was a beneficial experience for me because Georgia is also aspiring to same values of democracy, citizen engagement and tolerance and I can apply their experiences into my context, and use their democratic journey as an example to be replicated in my community and in my country.
School for Political Leaders of Eastern Partnership was extremely exciting since participants became friends; we share information daily about our countries progress towards European Union, we interact with each other and discuss the latest developments shaping our countries politics and future. These informal relations allow us to know more about each country, internal politics and societal attitudes beyond the official news sources. We are able to get information directly from our peers and thus have an insider’s perspective into each country. The School also helped us learn about different cultures, traditions and backgrounds. I also believe that development of an online PDF publication is a great way of us further and more regularly sharing our experiences, challenges and news about our countries journey to European Union. Last but not least, we as a young people have great opportunity to get involved in political and/or civic processes as we all have potential be became the future leaders because “Potential leaders are everywhere …”
School for Political Leaders of the East Partnership countries – a remarkable experience
SPLEP was from the very beginning an interesting challenge for everyone. During whole days we had a lot of work: from 8 A.M. to 10 P.M in Kiev, and in Warsaw even from 7 A.M to 10 P.M The days were very intense, but due to interesting classes I hardly noticed when it was the evening, and then again the morning. I revised my knowledge on political studies, sociology and journalism and I certainly added to my information. I learned not only from trainers but also from fellow participants, most of whom had impressive experience I also wish to gain. The School for Political Leaders was my first international experience and I admit it convinced me to search for new possibilities in this area. Both sessions (28th of June – 5th of July 2013, Kiev), (22nd – 28th of September 2013, Warsaw) were very active: there were presentations, games and team-integrating activities. New people. New experience.
Cristina Gurez News Agency TRIBUNA Republic of Moldova e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
School for Political Leaders of the East Partnership countries (SPLEP) is a one-of-a-time experience. I mean not only the program but also the way it was carried out and the places where the sessions were realized, the persons I worked with and the gained information.
We spoke English, Russian, Romanian. I learned several words from Ukrainian, Polish and Georgian. We shared our impressions and ideas at to our respective countries and cultures.
One day was especially memorable, even though all propositions were very interesting. This day ended with a visit in the office of the magazine “Res Publica Nova”. I had the honor to participate there in an exceptional panel discussion. Two editors in chief from political magazines were asked typically political, provocative questions: journalism and money... The rivalry between them only added fuel to the fire in an already heated debate. We also learned the rules of the Oxford debate and one day I could attend one. A true show. Our friends did good. It is also worthwhile to recall a team game in the first night, in the nearby forest. With help of little flashlights, we were looking for clues how to find Dracula. This is not a joke. Between 10 and 11 P.M. we were searching for clues J In order to properly describe the election campaign, the effort put in its preparation and the final results, I would need to write at least two more pages. Among the unforgettable events were not only training sessions and study visits but also the time spent with the people I already met in Kiev and with whom I established bonds reaching beyond formal acquaintance. There were many positive emotions and unforgettable moments.
In Warsaw we worked much harder than in Kiev but is was also more interesting. We had a number of study visits. We met the deputies of the Polish Sejm and even MEP Rafał Trzaskowski from Poland, who is greatly involved in the cooperation of our country with the EU. We visited the Sejm, in the Chancellery of the President we met the president’s advisor Henryk Wujec – a true legend, who told us many interesting stories. We visited the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw. In Kiev we also cooperated with deputies, parties, NGOs and journalists.
I finished School with a greater knowledge, new information, friends, contacts, impressions, emotions, perspectives and plans! I have not become a leader yet but I have made a large step in this direction. Due to this project, I was able to see new cities and learn new cultures. I came home with many photographs, graduation diploma, beautiful memories, a magnet to put on the fridge door and an envelope – a heritage, in which other participants expressed their opinion of me. An interesting thing... and, of course, with greater experience in many aspects. I came back with heavy luggage – literally and figuratively speaking! And all ended well!... since if there is no happy end, there is no end at all! I wish, though, that we can all meet again, the organizers, the participants, and I look forward to some new projects, in which we could actively participate. Congratulations to the organizers for excellent organization and carrying out the entire project.
School for Leaders,
Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy
National Youth Council of Moldova – CNTM,
– Georgia Representation, Georgia
Republic of Moldova
on Globalization and Regional Cooperation (ACGRC), Armenia
ISBN 978–83–939043–2–7 Warsaw 2013