In March 2020, the EU Commission released its Communication - Eastern Partnership beyond 2020 - where the EC laid out the major directions in which the relations between the EU member states and its Eastern Partnership neighbors should develop. The Communication sparked the discussion of whether the listed objectives were sufficiently ambitious or not. Given the relevance of the future of Eastern Partnership, InterPressNews spoke to MEP Markéta Gregorová, a Vice-Chair of the Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly and the member of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee.

In addition to the Eastern Partnership countries’ EU membership prospect and the aspects of future cooperation, the topics discussed in the interview include the 8th March agreement, constitutional amendment in Georgian Parliament, and the upcoming 2020 Parliamentary Elections.

At the beginning of her term, President von der Leyen stated that the current college of Commissioners would be geopolitical, meaning that the EU would be more strategically assertive in the neighboring regions. Apart from the Balkans, do the EU’s geopolitical aspirations extend to Eastern Partnership countries? If so, would you say that the objectives listed in the Communication on EaP beyond 2020 have the geopolitical elements?

Well, if I understand correctly the meaning of the term geopolitical here is that whether there are some ambitions to offer more, even membership for example. Then, it’s definitely something that the European Union is striving for, at least I see it from the perspective of the reports and resolutions we are working on. There is really a strong urge to motivate all the countries of Eastern Partnership to progress further - so that those who already have Association agreements and DCFAs, such as Georgia for example, to offer them even more, to deepen the relationship and maybe in the future also the possibility to apply for membership in the EU. Those who are not so progressed yet - we don't want to leave them behind, that is a very important point because the divided region is more vulnerable towards the external influence. We want tailor-made individual incentives to push them. I'm speaking for example about Belarus, which has its own developments and problems, and we need to offer them what will motivate them to progress further. Of course, it isn’t on the table yet, something like a membership, but definitely, when you were speaking in general about geopolitical incentives the EU is prioritizing this.

We see that the EU's current priority is enlargement for the Western Balkans. We also see that North Macedonia and Albania are closest to this perspective. Do you think that enlargement into the Balkans can open doors in the future for EaP countries towards a membership perspective? Or will it lead to another stage of so-called enlargement fatigue?

Well, of course, it is sometimes difficult to say as it depends on a lot of actors and a lot of governments and member states because as we know with the example of North Macedonia, even one country or one country of several supporters could block it. You know that it was France, I won't go into detail on that, but it depends on the motivation of the member states. I don't want to appear as judging the future, but I think that if the Western Balkans actually reach the membership position, it would be actually a help for other countries to get there. The last member state joined several years ago already and I think this is like the next step, you know, the first huge step was for the Western countries such as Germany, France and of course the northern and southern countries was to accept the Central and Eastern Europe. As I am from Central and Eastern Europe, I know how afraid they were about us not really fitting into the common project of the European Union, but we fit it. Then it kind of helped to even broaden it to former Yugoslavia, Croatia. So, I feel like if anyone is now kind of afraid of the even more distant countries, the Western Balkans again show that yes, it's possible. The project is still standing strong and let's move on with other countries. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but considering the historical approach, I feel like this is a very possible future.

You have worked on the Greens/EFA vision document with regard to the future of EaP. The document advocates for including membership perspective within the EaP framework. While the EU remains reluctant of offering membership perspective to the EaP countries, Georgian Ambassador to EU suggested that the prospect of the European Economic Area-style entity can be another option. Do you think that pushing for such an option can be a more feasible objective at this stage?

Maybe I’ll use this opportunity to explain very briefly the paper that we drafted. The reason for that is that there are several options for the future of Eastern partnership and some political groups and political forces established some of their visions and I personally am not a fan of their visions. For example, the already famous Trio strategy. I feel like that is exactly what I said a few moments ago about the division of the region - as I know what the dual-speed European Union would cost us those who would be left behind. I don't want to leave behind anyone within the region, because I see the danger. That is why we drafted let's say a counter-vision to those that are already presented and that is what is the paper is about. So, of course, it's very ambitious and it tells us what we wanted in the long-term. It doesn't state that it will happen in the next two years or something, but if you have like a vision and you know where you're going then it's much easier to actually progress. So that's why we're all speaking about membership. Of course, if anything is more feasible in the next 2 years or even sooner then we will definitely support it. I think that the economic area is a very good direction in which to go because even the EU itself started on economic integration, even though the reasons were also regarding peace in the European continent. But economic integration is always very helpful in any kind of other political integration. So, I think it is more feasible. I also think it is important to always emphasize that membership is the ultimate goal and that's where we are going in order not to get stuck on just one option.

To further discuss the Trio strategy, Georgia-Ukraine-Moldova have been requesting EU+3 format for sectoral integration. Many analysts claim that the 3+1 format can offer a more intensive dialogue platform between the EU and the Associated Countries. Do you think that establishing such a format can be possible at the EaP Summit due to take place in 2021? Can you elaborate on your view with regards to it?

Thank you for this question so that I can explain it in more depth because. I know that for Georgians, Ukrainians and Moldavians and also Armenians, it's a very important incentive and platform. However, I don't want to take the progress from them - I think that the tailor-made incentives are a better way because if it's just three plus one or any kind of model like that, it leaves behind the others and that is not helping the whole region. I know that each country has its own issues and challenges it needs to tackle. However, you can't leave behind the region, considering all the external actors, and I'm not talking just about Russia, but also for example about China, which is trying to heavily invest in some parts of various countries, or other countries even Turkey from the southern border. They are threat, I will be very honest. They are a threat and if they see a division in the region, they will immediately use it for their purposes and then the three more progressive countries will have their borders very unstable, maybe even manipulated systems. If you consider what is happening in Georgia, for example with the Borderization or in Ukraine and Crimea right now, then I don't even want to imagine what would the potential threats be if the countries became even more vulnerable because of the division. So that is why I'm kind of afraid of this trio strategy and I would be much happier if we kept the Eastern partnership something like the EU common project where everybody is supporting each other - if you have an Association agreement and then let's build on that; and if you don't have it - let's try something for having it. I think it's much more feasible. So, I would be happier if that was being discussed next year on the EaP Summit actually.

Speaking of sectoral integration, some analysts suggested that the EU should start security cooperation with its eastern neighbors. Georgia has been a target, especially lately, for cyber attacks and disinformation coming from Russia. Do you think that the EU should be more active in terms of cooperation with EaP countries in cyber security, hybrid threats and the disinformation domain? Can the cooperation go even further in terms of Associated countries joining ESDP/PESCO?

Very good question. I'm focusing on disinformation quite a lot. And yes, it is a very serious topic. I think that there should never be a focus on just one part because international relations is a very complicated system of relations and diplomatic measures. That is why if you prefer to focus just on security cooperation and then, for example, Russia would feel like it's a very offensive step forward and might take measures against it, which you never want. So, I think that it's best to let's say focus on a package of areas both for example in the regional development economic cooperation, but yes, also hybrid threats such as cyber-attacks or disinformation. I know for sure that now already the EU and the EaP countries are cooperating in terms of disinformation. They are trying to share know-how on how to tackle disinformation, what campaigns are going. Of course, the biggest platforms are often based in America. So, they are also discussing it with various countries and trying to help them to for example uncover and covert operations or trolls for disinformation campaigns. And that is also why I personally think that America should be involved even more especially given its specific position in the world and in international relations. I would be very happy to see one day Georgia joining NATO. I know that is a controversial topic, but I really think that NATO should really focus on let's say dealing with the situation in these countries, and if it can't due to various reasons to deal with it with membership, then I think it can be definitely more involved. Of course, ESDP and even PESCO are also on the table. I just wanted to bring to your attention even this aspect, because when we are talking about security in the world, it's not just about the EU. The biggest players are unfortunately and I'm sorry to say that but somewhere else.

The EU reacted swiftly in terms of assisting the EaP countries during the pandemic: providing grants, macro-financial loans, supplies and medical equipment. In addition, new polls conducted in 2019 show that the EU enjoys quite high rates of support in the EaP region. Given the importance of foreign aid for developing countries throughout the pandemic crisis, do you think that such a response was another pivotal step towards establishing the EU as an essential and most credible partner for EaP countries especially in relation to other powers in the region?

Yes, the simple answer would be yes. I absolutely think that this step from the EU was of most importance and it shows how important the region is for us compared to other powers in the region. I will of course speak especially about China which as far as I know also provided some assistance and helped. I think that in comparison we can see that the EU is still the biggest economic Bloc in the world and it has the power to help, and help without any let's say conditions. So, I am very happy that the EU showed this kind of power in the pandemic especially given that the Chinese authorities heavily helped the spread by covering information about it as we know now. They knew about the virus for already some time before it spread, and if they shared this kind of information with the world sooner and didn't try to suppress it then we might have been more prepared. So, I don't think that in general we should rely on these authoritarian systems, and I'm glad that the EU proved to be better at this kind of assistance.

With regards to the 8th March agreement. Georgian Parliament approved the constitutional amendment and the country switched to close to a proportional system. However, the opposition didn’t take part in the vote claiming that the ruling party didn’t fulfill the agreement by releasing all political prisoners. How could you assess the whole process?

For starters, I'm very happy that the 8th March agreement exists and that it happened. I am also very glad that even though sometimes it looked like it, that in the end, nobody used the pandemic to postpone any kind of progress in this regard because that was something that we were afraid of you to know, because when you suddenly have a pandemic in your hands, it's kind of difficult to deal with the usual everyday politics. So, I'm glad it didn't really destroy all the negotiations. I absolutely understand the opposition not voting as the situation of political prisoners is really important and unfortunate and I think it just shows that they still stand for what they negotiated originally. I don't think it's a problem because the government has the majority of votes that is why it’s government, right? So, if they weren't able to pass it, then they would actually break the whole deal. So, I'm very happy that it's passed. Right now, my assessment is that we are watching closely the situation. We hope that everything will fall into its right places before the October Elections and of course, if anything goes sideways, we will be ready to comment on that and to try to get involved or help with the negotiation, if we can.

Last month, demonstrators marked the 1-year anniversary of the June 20 protests by gathering in front of the Parliament. The very protest one year ago eventually led to the recent constitutional change with regards to the close to proportional electoral system. However, the government still maintains that the protests at that time took a violent turn and that it was an attempt by the “destructive opposition”. Some think that the protest was a clear message towards Russia in terms of Georgia’s assertive position on occupation and on the other hand, a signal towards the West that Georgian citizens aspire for a more democratic country. How do you see this whole process from this point?

As you probably know, I have been in Georgia for several times already. In Brussels and everywhere I try to speak to all the parties, not only to the ruling party and the opposition but also to the protesters, citizens, activists NGOs. I try to really establish the most objective view I can. Of course, my point of view is still subjective. I'm not claiming that I'm completely right and what I say is totally correct because I haven't been there and it's always hard to sometimes judge from a distance. However, I dare to say that I have an opinion and the opinion is that the protesters were not violent and the cases that happened were individual or maybe even staged, we can't say that for sure, but I don't think that in general, the government shouldn’t just say all the protesters were violent. The protesters did what they could at the situation where they were and I fully stand behind their attempts. I'm very happy to see that after a year there is progress in their demands. Let me tell you it's not that common. I am from the Czech Republic and we protest against our prime minister for maybe over a year already and nothing happened. So, you are actually more successful than we are. So, I see this whole process actually quite successful at least in comparison. If the general public and citizens continue to get more involved and be active and put their energy into something positive then I think that you can see just in a few years from now a huge change and huge transformation. I'm glad that it also shows where Georgia stands towards Russia and towards the EU.

Georgia’s having parliamentary elections in October 2020. Not long ago, the US Ambassador in Georgia and as well as one of your colleagues, MEP Viola von Cramon raised concerns that Russia might try to interfere in the process of elections. Given the recent cases of Russia meddling in elections abroad, do you see this danger in Georgia? What kind of preventive measures should the Georgian government take?

Yes, I also see the dangers of that not only from the side of Russia. There are already huge studies regarding how much foreign interference in democratic elections is happening. Not only in one region. It's a global thing, you know in South America also, that might not touch us, but it is happening within Brazil, Paraguay. Of course, the EU is also facing a lot of this, America has this kind of issue for a long time already and it has been in the last presidential elections. Of course, the Eastern partnership region is very vulnerable considering your close neighbors, let's say in the region. So, I think that the Georgian government should definitely take steps. I think that the biggest problem is foreign interference in the online world. It is maybe more subtle than if someone actually meddled with the election votes or someone tried to bribe someone in front of the election rooms, but it's even more dangerous because of that. Because it can cover huge amounts of population and it can work for months. It maybe already in place now. There are disinformation campaigns running and we might not see their goals. Sometimes these kinds of disinformation campaigns don't have immediate calls. It is not to support one candidate or one party or to be against someone. It is more to divide the society so that they argue and fight each other, which is the terrifying power of hybrid threats. So, I think that the government should take such steps such as really starting to communicate with the opposition, to communicate with its citizens, because if citizens don't trust their government and their country in general then there is when they believe in disinformation campaigns and manipulation. If the government is trustworthy and if even opposition is constructive and trustworthy, then they are less vulnerable towards this. So, I would advise them about this. Of course, there are even more technical measures and there will be definitely some communication between the EU and Georgia regarding this and then there will be of course the observing parties to the elections to see how it is going. But I think this is something that the Georgian government can work now and forever actually, because in the long term it will definitely pay off.

Giorgi Jgharkava

InterPressNews