Caucaz
europenews
01/30/2005 23:43 Tbilisi
EU-Caucasus, interview with Damien Helly [4/4] [PERCEPTION – EUROPEAN
IDENTITY]
By François GREMY in Paris
On 14/11/2004
Perception of EU in Caucasus : Interview with Damien Helly, independent
researcher in Brusells and former director of the « Caucasus » project of
the International Crisis Group –
May EU exist and be perceived as a unique entity, whereas European States
invest quite considerably and visibly in the three South-Caucasus countries
( France in Armenia, Germany in Georgia and Great-Britain in Azerbaijan ) ?
Untill recently, the European Union had a problem of visibility. Its major
member States were the Ses grands Etats membres en étaient la vitrine. The
efforts that EU undertook by EU by way of the humanitarian and Tacis
programs have slightly changed the situation. The nomination of its special
representative, Heikki Talvitie, also changed it. This visibility is getting
better, but from the point of view of the Caucasian citizen who does not
know those issues in detail, EU is still assimilated to the Council of
Europe, or even to the United States sometimes. The confusion between the
European Institutions has been noticed in other places, is it not the case
even among EU ?
Do the Caucasian leaders have the same expectations of EU than EU has of
Caucasus ?
There have always been comprehension issues and a mismatch between
perceptions. Mainly, the Caucasian political leaders have a short-term
approach : they would want to take benefit of the relations with EU on the
practical and financial level, or also for the political prestige. When
Europeans are still on a long-term prospect as for creating a real political
and economic change.
This mismatch is decreasing, but the issue is still the same : to take the
common decision to move forward in the same direction. We do not know wether
the three countries of South-Caucasus really have the choice to move on
toward Europe, or if all this is only rhetoric.
EU tries to promote the developments of democracy and the civil society.
Does not it seem too early or to not be among the priorities of the
Caucasian countries which still depend on latent conflicts?
It is not because the democratisation of Caucasus is taking time that we
have to push it back. It is preferable to initiate this process upstream in
order to quickly get the relative effects. Moreover, the conflicts-solving
depends very strongly on the societies’ democratisation. Indeed the
authoritarian systems, by way of propaganda and a national rhetoric, do not
favour the free expression of the public opinion about the conflicts issue.
On the other hand, within a politicaly open society there could be a debate
about the conflicts and intercommunities relations. In this case, to
democratise the conflicts issue makes it consequently less dramatic. Thus
those two process are absolutly linked.
Translated by Marie Anderson