Johannes Hahn: “We are ready to talk, but the Russian Federation must make the first step”

Last week, Johannes Hahn, new European Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement visited Tbilisi. The Austrian diplomat who has replaced Stefan Fule is a member of European People’s Party and was in charge of regional policy issues before the enlargement of the EU.

The Kviris Palitra paper exclusively interviewed the EU Commissioner regarding Georgia’s European prospects and the situation in the post-Soviet space.

- Can the recent deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo satirical newspaper influence the European Union’s ongoing enlargement process? Will that make the European leaders think: Enough with enlargements for now?

First of all, what happened in Paris is indeed a tragedy which has affected not only Europeans but people from all over the world. You saw hundreds of thousands of people marching through streets of Paris, accompanied by World leaders, demonstrating for peace, freedom and transparency of media and for European values in general. But when it comes to discussions about the visa-liberalization process, we apply a certain methodology which is based on facts and figures, and this will also continue in the future when we will have second assessment of visa liberalization process, which will start by the end of January.

- In particular, the Spanish government expressed concerns over Schengen rules: they want to see the Schengen treaty modified to allow border control to be restored to limit the movements of Islamic fighters returning to Europe from the Middle East. If this kind of approach gains more momentum could it hamper the visa liberalization process for Georgia, scheduled to happen at the Riga Summit in 2015?

-When it comes to the Spanish government’s statement, one should not confuse stronger border control, with visa-liberalization. Visa liberalization does not mean that there is no border control. When it comes to the Schengen area, the only thing that matters is do you need a visa to cross or not? So, these are two different issues which should not be confused.

- Sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU as retaliation for Russian aggression in Ukraine are having an undeniable effect. What can Georgia do to get its own territorial conflicts to be given the same “treatment”?

-First of all, the European leaders are all fully aware of the situation here in Georgia. Of course, it’s always good to be more vocal but with principle, we are observing the situation very carefully. We are indeed concerned about further developments in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia. Moreover, we are concerned about all the activities of the Russian Federation in the past couple of months, not to mention years. Of course, this does not make discussions, easier and we’ve always said the European Union is ready to settle the conflicts but the first steps must be made by the Russian Federation. They have violated Ukraine and Georgia’s territorial integrity.

- However, in 2008, there were no sanctions imposed on Russia... Additionally, the six point ceasefire agreement remains unfulfilled to this day, but nobody speaks about imposing sanctions on the Kremlin over these issues.

-- There is a difference. There are clearly Russian troops in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, carrying out activities that violate the Minsk Agreement, which should be respected by all partners, which evidently is not the case and this is definitely the reason why I am for the moment pessimistic; although I, as everyone else, would like to see improvements which would allow us to lift the sanctions, because sanctions are not the first and best solution. People are suffering because of the sanctions - Russian people, Ukrainian people, also people in Georgia, people in European Union – everybody is affected. But we have to be firm and clear when it comes to violation of international law.

- What is the EU’s main interest? What goal has to be achieved for the sanctions to be lifted? What’s the milestone Russia has to come to?

--First of all, it’s about respecting the Minsk Agreement, which was reached with Russia’s involvement as well. We all sat at the negotiating table and agreed to certain terms; so the first and foremost issue is definitely to stick to this agreement, to implement it, to respect in a sustainable manner.

- What about Crimea? Does lifting the sanctions envisage Crimea returning to Ukraine?

--Once again, we cannot accept the annexation of Crimea but the Minsk Agreement is a primary goal. It’s targeted at the situation in Eastern Ukraine and about reaching a cease-fire, creating buffer zones and leading to all these measures, this is what has to be respected and implemented.

- Agreements between Russia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia share one peculiar detail: Continuation of Russia’s recognition and support policy towards those regions and a possible increase in the number of countries that recognize them as a state, which will facilitate their inclusion into international organizations. What levers does the EU have to ensure that this doesn’t happen at least in Europe?

- I think this situation is different and frankly, again I do not see any indication to make me think that any country not only European ones, will accept both breakaway regions as independent states.

- Last question to sum it all up: What role does the Russian factor play in the enlargement of the European Union?

- It’s all up to these countries to show interest in joining the EU. It’s not like the European Union is shopping around to this or that country, offering them membership and asking: Would you like to become a member? The situation is a quite different one; but if there is a serious interest from a country and its people, then I think it’s our responsibility to deal with this interest in a serious manner. For example, when it comes to the enlargement process in the rest of Balkans, we are going ahead there and the situation in eastern Ukraine does not have any influence