On November 25, the Center for East European and International Studies (ZOiS) held a roundtable on the topic ‘Recovery, Risk, and Resilience: Re-thinking the Future of EU-South Caucasus Relations’. The event was conducted in cooperation with JENA-CAUC at the University of Jena as part of their project ‘Resilience in the South Caucasus: prospects and challenges of a new EU foreign policy concept’. Stefan Meister, Head of the Program International Order and Democracy at the DGAP, moderated the discussion which was attended by Sonja Katharina Schiffers, Director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation Tbilisi - South Caucasus Region, Maia Panjikidze, Professor at the Caucasus University Tbilisi and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leila Alieva, affiliate of the REES, Oxford School for Global and Area Studies (OSGA) and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow of the Robert Bosch Academy, as well as Shushanik Minasyan, researcher at the University of Bonn and Post-Doc researcher for SAIS at John Hopkins University.

Stefan Meister started off the roundtable by introducing the discussants and the general topic of resilience in the EU policy towards the Eastern partnership countries. Here, Meister summarized the five main areas of priorities for the EU in their redefined vision of resilience, namely resilience and integrated economies, accountable institutions and the rule of law, climate resilience, the digital transformation as well as fair and inclusive societies. He also stressed that economic policies have previously been dominant, while the governance parts of the agenda remained less developed. According to Meister, the South Caucasus is still a peripheral region for EU policy, and he identified the regional trend of democratic backsliding and the undermining of the Minsk-format as a consequence of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as the two biggest obstacles for the EU. In his estimation, the current EU approach is not sustainable as the economic focus will not be sufficient to confront future challenges in the South Caucasus.  

After the introduction, each discussant gave a short keynote address followed by an open panel discussion. Panjikidze gave the first keynote, focusing on resilience related issues in Georgia. According to her, the instability since the elections last year and the situation revolving around Saakashvili are seen as a legitimacy test for Georgian democracy in the eyes of the EU. Election issues, like voter intimidation, have been frequently criticized and the electoral landscape is still a bipolar affair as the Georgian Dream and the United National Movement vie for power. Other concerns relate to issues with the EU-Georgia association agreement, the refusal to implement judicial reforms promoted by the EU and the failure on part of the Georgian government to investigate the July-attack on ca. 50 journalists in the country.

Nevertheless, Panjikidze said that the EU-mediated agreement between the rivaling parties resulted in an end to the six-month-long political crisis after the 2020 parliamentary election, which is an indicator for the strong influence that the EU retains, even after the GD has left the agreement. In her opinion, no fundamental changes are needed in regard to EU policy in the region as long as the EU intensifies its efforts and continues to specify its existing resilience approach.

In her talk on Azerbaijan, Alieva generally agreed that EU regional efforts need to be intensified. She made the notion that the EU’s policy towards Azerbaijan remains ambiguously framed to avoid diplomatic costs. This broad framework might lead to the view that authoritarian resilience is acceptable as long as existing institutions are capable of dealing with shocks and crises. She argued that EU policies do not address the obstacles to reforms that are characteristic for oil rich rentier states and that the transformation agenda is taking the backseat to the development of partnerships in the energy sector. Governance issues have therefore been largely neglected by the EU, and Alieva predicted that emerging investment efforts by the EU in Nagorno-Karabakh will be mostly detached from non-economic issues as well.

After all, Alieva still sees potential for the EU to play a larger role in the mediation process surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. She also hoped that the EU will take more of a ‘normative actor’ role in its relationship with Baku. When asked by Meister if the EU failed to recognize Azerbaijan’s success regarding its authoritarian transformation that made the country the strongest state in the region, Alieva argued that the only way forward still goes through liberalization as Azerbaijan continues to suffer from high rates of outward migration regardless of its perceived success in terms of economics and regional influence.

Minasyan sees little resilience and a lot of political instability in Armenia. Since the end of the last Nagorno-Karabakh War, the current government has lost much credibility and Pashinyan’s political capital is diminished. This leads the governing coalition to focus on its immediate survival rather than to implement the promised structural changes that are needed to increase the country’s resilience. The hopes after the Velvet Revolution have been disappointed as reforms turned out to be superficial and corruption within the administrative state continues under the new ruling class. Contrary to early expectations, Minasyan sees civil liberties under pressure as civil society has been hollowed out when civil society actors moved into the government after 2018, leaving the civic landscape depleted and paralyzed. In addition, she sees Western influence wane as Russia and Turkey are growing stronger and more ambitious.

Overall, her outlook for Armenia is bleak as Western countries are pushed to the margins. According to her, the EU therefore needs to get more heavily involved to regain its influence. Normative statements, like those published during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, were increasingly ridiculed in the Armenian public and especially France has lost much reputation for its lack of diplomatic impact. Meister agreed with this notion and argued that this shrinking ambition comes at a times when the EU struggles to retain internal coherence.

Schiffers finally summarized broader regional trends by pointing to three main challenges in the region. First, democratic stagnation and backsliding are becoming more evident as Georgia and Armenia struggle with partisan conflicts that undermine further democratization. She identified a lack of grassroots activism, democratic culture in political interactions and the lack of genuine reforms that limit the power of the ruling parties as major obstacles in this regard. Second, she sees the progress towards gender equality and LGBTQ rights under attack as both Armenia and Azerbaijan rejected the ratification of the Istanbul Convention to prevent violence against women. Schiffers also pointed out that all three countries continue to have low participation rates for women in politics. Incidences like the Tbilisi Pride show the lack of minority protection. Russian disinformation campaigns further fuel societal backlash against these issues, Schiffers said. As the third risk, she identified climate changes that have recently impacted the region, mentioning that farmers have struggled in particular as the weather has become drier.

Schiffers also pointed out that Russia retains a strong security footprint in the region, while Turkey must be seen as a new aggressive player in regard to military developments. The EU, on the other hand, has traditionally focused on economic and societal reforms. According to her, the EU does not lack ambition and democratization is ultimately the only viable option for the South Caucasus countries. Yet, she cautioned to consider that such challenges require time.

In the following open discussion, a question on the relevance of US influence and the upcoming US democracy summit received the most attention. Here, Panjikidze said that the lack of a formal invite to the Georgian government has sent a critical signal to Tbilisi on how recent domestic developments have been received in the West. Alieva mentioned that Baku has also not been invited to the summit but she added that the Azerbaijani public sees Western involvement generally with a certain degree of cynicism as normative rhetoric has allegedly often been used to justify actual Realpolitik. Minasyan doubted that the summit will have any significant impact on the region as the Caucasus has always been low on the US foreign policy agenda despite public rhetoric to the contrary.

Schiffers answered a question on the lack of trust in Armenia after recent revelations on Azerbaijani briberies to EU and German officials suggest that Baku was able to establish deep seated influence in Brussels and Berlin through illegitimate means. She argued that the EU should put Armenia on its list of transformation partners and that Germany should implement a strong development cooperation with Armenia to improve trust once again.

In the end, Meister reminded the audience of the low popularity ratings of Russia among the publics of the Caucasus despite Moscow’s growing military influence in the region. He concluded the event by saying that democratization seems to remain the only alternative for the region as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan all struggle with large outmigration to the West.

Philip Roehrs-Weist