scholarly journals Boosting the EU’s soft power in Eastern Partnership countries

European View ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 178168582199984
Author(s):  
Michael Gahler

In 2009 the Eastern Partnership (EaP) was established, through which the EU formalised its relationships with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova. The EU’s objective was to deepen cooperation; contribute to these countries’ economic, political and social development; and improve stability in the region. In the past decade the EU has achieved varying degrees of closer cooperation as well as seeing considerable progress in terms of development in the EaP countries. At the same time, Russia, considering the EaP countries to be within its sphere of influence, has tried to undermine the partnership through means of disinformation and hybrid warfare. This requires the EU to further boost its soft power to counter Russia’s destabilising policy in the region. This article outlines the development of the EaP and its achievements, examines Russian influence and disinformation in the region, and finally, points out possible measures to boost EU soft power to address the Russian challenge.

Author(s):  
Oleh Kozachuk ◽  
Grigore Vasilescu

The article examines the issues of counteracting the hybrid aggression of the Russian Federation in the countries of the Eastern Partnership. It is stated that European Union has been implementing the Eastern Partnership policy for more than ten years. This implementation has been a resounding success for all, without exception, the six target states. Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia have advanced much more in their European aspirations. However, this does not stop the Russian Federation from further positioning all the states that were once part of the USSR as a sphere of its ultimate influence. Russia is also producing rivalry with the EU for influencing all, without exception, the Eastern Partnership states and even the EU. An overview of academic research analyzing the resilience of the EU in the face of Russia in the context of its impact on the Eastern Partnership countries is set out in this article. Some approaches have been used to define the EU as a “normative power” and Russia’s controversial policy towards neighbouring countries. The examination of the works described in the article concludes that the Russian Federation continues to regard neighbouring states as its sphere of influence, particularly Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. Moscow considers any attempt by a third party to interfere as an intrusion on its unique field of power. As can be observed from the investigated sources, Russia’s activities are scarcely diplomatic or focused on global democratic norms. In its Eastern Partnership strategy, the EU, on the other hand, utilizes values as a guideline. Simultaneously, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, and Georgia must demand immediate modifications to the Eastern Partnership policy. The potential of EU membership, in particular, must be appropriately explained by Brussels.


2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-39
Author(s):  
Vyacheslav Sutyrin ◽  

The paper deals with the problem of investigating strategies and experience of the European Union which it employs to strengthen its political influence in the Eastern Partnership countries by means of working with business sector. The author analyses statistical data, official EU position and programme documents, funding data. Institutional and constructivist approaches are employed to study the processes and results of EU policies. The study covers the period between 2009 and 2020, and investigates aims, instruments, funding, KPI of the EU in dealing with business communities of Eastern Partnership countries. The author gives an overview of a range of opinions in expert discussions concerning the humanitarian influence of the EU. The conclusion is drawn that the scale and forms of EU interventions and funding for particular country are conditioned by the level of political relationship with its government. The bulk of funding (more than 60%) is directed not to loans or subsidies to SMEs, but to humanitarian (i.e. “soft power”) projects focusing of particular groups – entrepreneurs, active youth, regions, officials, etc. EU humanitarian penetration into focus countries of EP creates an infrastructure, social organizations and groups, which could be utilized to political ends.


2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-118
Author(s):  
Sergejs Stacenko ◽  
Biruta Sloka

AbstractThe article will show major dimensions in the experience of EU Member States that could be shared with the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries. The framework of the study is the EU concept of trade unions in social dialogue and social partnership in the public sector. This study outlines the concept of social dialogue as a core element of industrial relations and will focus on industrial relations specifically in the public sector. The authors have elaborated the approach to industrial relations and social dialogue taking into account comparative approach to definitions provided by international institutions such as ILO and OECD, as well as institutions in the EU and Latvia. Latvia is also a case study for Eastern Partnership countries as these countries and their trade unions are in a transition period from socialist structures to structures that possess liberal economies. Trade unions in these countries are members of the International Trade Union Confederation. The major transformation that trade unions underwent from being part of the socialist system and becoming an independent institution since Latvia regained independence in 1991 has been studied. The paper discusses the current developments related to the position of Latvian Free Trade Union Federation in the system of decision-making process related to the public administration management. Finally, the prospective role of trade unions in the EU and in Latvia is analysed and possible revitalisation of trade union is discussed. This approach could be applied to the Eastern Partners of the EU.


Author(s):  
Zvezda Vankova

AbstractThis chapter brings together the EU and national instruments conducive to circular migration developed in Bulgaria and Poland and assesses their implementation against the backdrop of the study’s benchmarks concerning entry and re-entry conditions for migrant workers. In order to do that, the chapter first presents the national general admission frameworks and the specific instruments identified as favourable to circular migration; as a second step, it focuses on the implementation of EU instruments in the national laws of Bulgaria and Poland. This analysis is complemented by insights into the implementation dynamics of the EU and national instruments on the basis of data collected through focus groups with migrants from Ukraine and Russia as well as interviews conducted with stakeholders and data on permits retrieved from the national administrations of both countries. The chapter ends with an assessment of whether the instruments developed provide options for facilitated entry for migrants from the Eastern partnership countries and Russia, as well as for circulation-friendly policies – for instance, the possibility to grant priority to seasonal workers who have been employed in the territory of a Member State for a significant period over other workers who seek admission to that State.


Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5(62)) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
David Darchiashvili ◽  
David Bakradze

The article views the geographical area between the EU and Russian borders as a battle space of two, drastically different foreign policy and ideological approaches. The authors argue that in the years since the end of the Cold War, a unique surrogate of former clash of liberal and communist worlds emerged, leading to and underpinning current Hybrid Warfare, underway from Ukraine to Georgia. Its roots lay in the Russian interpretation of the Western attitude towards the East as Neo-colonialist. Relying on the income from its vast energy resources, Russia also tries to develop its version of so called “Soft Power”, used by the West in this region. Though in Russian hands, it is coupled with Moscow’s imperial experiences and resentments, and is becoming a mere element in Hybrid or “non-linear” war. Speaking retrospectively, the Eastern Partnership Initiative of the European Union can be seen as a response to Hybrid threats, posed by Russia against its Western and Southern neighbors. But the question is, whether EU foreign policy initiatives towards this area can and will be efficient and sufficient, if continued to be mostly defensive and limited within Soft Power mechanisms and philosophy, while Russia successfully combines those with traditional Hard Power know-how? The authors argue that in the long run, European or Euro-Atlantic Soft Power tool-kits, spreading Human Rightsbased culture farther in the East, will remain unmatched. But in order to prevail over the Russian revisionist policy here and now, the West, and, particularly, the EU need to re-evaluate traditional foreign policy options and come up with a more drastic combination of Soft/Hard Powers by itself. As the Georgian case shows, the European community should more efficiently use Conditionality and Coercive Diplomacy, combined with clearer messages about partners’ membership perspectives.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Vasniova ◽  
Olga Biarozka ◽  
Nataliia Lyuta ◽  
Iryna Sanina ◽  
Andreas Scheidleder ◽  
...  

<p>The EU-funded program European Water Initiative Plus for Eastern Partnership Countries (EUWI+), which is the biggest commitment of the EU to the water sector in the EaP countries, helps Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine to bring their legislation closer to EU policy in the field of water management, with a main focus on the management of trans-boundary river basins. It supports the development and implementation of pilot river basin management plans, building on the improved policy framework and ensuring a strong participation of local stakeholders.</p><p>Project funding is provided by the European Commission (DG NEAR), the EU support program for improved cooperation in the eastern EU neighborhood region and the EU Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+). On a national level, financial support comes from the Austrian Development Agency, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism as well as from the French Office International de l’Eau. Up to 2020, management plans for selected river basins and transboundary rivers will be implemented under the leadership of a European project consortium headed by the Environment Agency Austria.</p><p>One important first step is the delineation of groundwater bodies according to the principles of the EU Water Framework Directive and the harmonization of transboundary groundwater bodies between Belarus and Ukraine. Groundwater experts of the Ukrainian Geological Prospecting Institute and the Belarus Unitary Enterprise “Research And Production Centre For Geology” identified and characterized the transboundary groundwater bodies which are crossing country boarders in the Dnipro river basin in Ukrainian and the Pripyat river basin in Belarus. Furthermore, a corridor which is supposed to be in transboundary groundwater interaction was identified. All methodological work was bilaterally agreed.</p><p>The experts of both countries made an inventory of existing groundwater monitoring sites and a proposal of monitoring sites which should be subject to transboundary monitoring and bilateral data exchange. In addition, a joint transboundary groundwater survey including the joint selection of monitoring parameters, a common sampling campaign and a joint interpretation of the monitoring results is planned for the period until August 2020.</p><p>A statement of the quantitative and chemical status and the risk of not achieving good status in future, as a conclusion of all collected information and monitoring data will be given.</p><p>The already available results of the joint investigations are presented.</p>


2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-149
Author(s):  
Tatyana Muravska ◽  
Alexandre Berlin

Abstract The European Union (EU) signed Association Agreements on 27 June 2014 with Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine. The Association Agreement (AA) is the EU’s main instrument to bring the countries in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) closer to EU standards and norms. For the citizens of the EaP countries to benefit from these agreements, a more in-depth knowledge of the EU and the EU Member States is required to be reflected in a comparative approach to European Union studies. We examine these implications on the need to expand and adapt, the content and approach to research and teaching European Union studies, with the transdisciplinary approach becoming increasingly dominant, becoming a modern tool for research in social sciences. This contribution aims to offer insight into the implementation of transdisciplinarity in the methodology of education and research as it is determined by current increasing global challenges. This approach should serve as a means of integrating a number of main goals as part of learning, teaching and research processes: strengthening employability of young people and preparing them for citizenship. We discuss the need for modernizing European studies in the EU Member States that could serve as an example for the EU Eastern Partnership countries. We conclude that the theoretical approach to European and related studies of other disciplines and their practical implications should always be transdisciplinary in nature and benefit from direct in-situ exposure and should be fully integrated in university curricula


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0257490
Author(s):  
Anna Jankowska

Diversification of the agricultural production potential often implies the differentiation of the achieved farming productivity due to its effect on the agricultural resources and structural processes. The article aims to examine the diversity of the production potential in the agricultural sectors of the EU candidate countries (CC) and the Eastern Partnership countries (EPC) and its impact on the variety of the achieved productivity, as well as to present changes in the analyzed indicators in the years 2006–2017. A synthetic measure of agricultural development and a linear regression analysis were applied in the article. The research revealed that Belarus may be distinguished with regard to its production potential, as well as the achieved productivity. In most countries (with the exception of Montenegro and Macedonia), an increase in the value of the synthetic measure of the possessed potential has been recorded in the studied period. However, the synthetic measure of the agricultural productivity level displayed an insignificant raise only in half of the countries surveyed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document