governance; redesigning public service & administration; gender equality; environmental aid;
rural development; sustainable agriculture; and others. The EU thus provides investment and capacity building support through financial and technical assistance – especially putting in limelight the community-led private sector development. (European Commission 2020j) Overall, the EaP program in the light of an increased EU-Moldova cooperation has been a significant marker within various spheres in the country. The EU is Moldova`s largest donor and development partner, and since signing the AA/DCFTA in 2014 the partnership has improved and deepened significantly. The EU`s financial assistance to Moldova (through ENI) is the highest per capita amongst other EaP states; and the EU`s long-term aim is to lift Moldova out of poverty and gradually lessen its dependence on Russia. (Dias 2013; Morari 2016) The events of 2014 and 2018 showed a backsliding of democratic standards and rule of law in Moldova, and it raised concerns about the adherence to the EU values and norms set out in the joint AA/DCFTA. (European Commission 2020i; Frear et al. 2018) Nowadays, with Sandu as a pro-European President of Moldova, the EU hopes for a deeper cooperation and forthgoing EaP implementation. Yet, this will be dependent on how will Moldova come out of the political discrepancies related to the planned reforms – including the country`s external orientation.9 This will naturally dictate and influence the future relations and advancement of the partnership. It will be compelling to observe how the internal political situation in Moldova progresses, and its subsequent effect on the EU-EaP development.
substantial high-level corruption and power-position present in both Belarus and Moldova.
The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of each country vis-à-vis the EaP, as well as the limitations encountered and existing challenges for the future.
The EaP exertion in Belarus has proved to be very restricted by its own government, which in turn limits cooperation with the EU to merely non-politicized, fiscal, and technical areas.
Accordingly, some tangible results and concrete EaP projects have been implemented in the economic area; whilst any interventions/policy-recommendations towards state institutions and respective governance are strongly discouraged by the authorities. The EU hence acknowledges the importance of engaging with the civil society as it not only improves social welfare for the local citizens, but also stimulates good practices in the region. These “seeds of technocracy” are intentionally spread by the EU when cooperating in diverse EaP sector-initiatives, and should ultimately lead towards an EU-friendly and democratic future in Belarus (Korosteleva 2016, p. 693). However, the EU Council Conclusions state that the Belarusian participation in the EaP will depend on developments within the rule of law and human rights areas in country; thus keeping a solid stance in the wake of shaping their future bilateral and EaP relations. (European Council 2021a)
In Moldova, the EU highlights the completion of the Association Agreement (alongside the DCFTA) and the Visa Liberalization Action Plan as the most prominent achievements of the EaP in the country. The manifold EaP projects have brought tangible benefits to millions of people; particularly in the economic and civil society area. These include assistance to thousands of SMEs, creating new jobs, fostering CBC and integrated border management (including Transnistria), youth and education programs, and others. Notwithstanding these positive advancements, deliverables in the governmental and institutional sector have been lagging behind, and significant reforms have yet to be implemented.
The vulnerabilities existing both in Belarus and Moldova - such as the high concentration of power, endemic corruption, and relatively weak institutions - are very problematic when it comes to reliable and efficient cooperation with the EU. The aforementioned issues (combined with Russian propagandists), endanger a healthy functioning of the private economic sector as well as the civil society organizations. (Boulègue et al. 2018) The EaP has since 2009 been the largest and most encompassing cooperation framework between the EU and the six Eastern neighborhood countries. The outlined EU instruments and deliverables
are well intended and elaborated, yet the gap between the action plans and realization has shown to be the (co)responsibility of the national EaP governments themselves. Domestic political authorities in combination with a strong Russian influence sphere undermine the EaP implementation; simultaneously with the lack of proper legislation and relevant mechanisms (as well as their follow-up). As a result, the EU oftentimes cannot reach whom the specific programs are targeted to (i.e. civil society; private sector; SMEs), since the nexus of national instruments work against it rather than in its favor.
The challenge for the EU is to increase its geopolitical influence not only rhetorically, but in a way that is reflected through its assertive (foreign) policy. The Russian geopolitical presence is another important reason why the EU has avoided security cooperation with the EaP states, also as a means of achieving a sort of balance of power in their shared neighborhood space.
(Linkevičius 2021; Slunkin 2020) The quest for an EU-Russia rapprochement as a strategic goal, however, remains a dubious matter looking at the recent IR developments. The national and foreign affairs of Belarus and Moldova are thus very relevant for the framing the EU`s external policy vis-à-vis the EaP, which in turn affects the incentives and extent of cooperation therewith.
As the EU has shifted from idealism to more pragmatism in the last decade, we can also expect this being reflected in its mandate towards the EaP region. Nonetheless, the EU as a value- and norm-setter of global importance should strive to do its utmost best at pursuing cooperation initiatives like the Eastern Partnership. Whether this will be met with optimal domestic and international conditions is uncertain, yet it is the duty of a well-developed region to aid its (developing) neighbor; for the sake of stability and peace on the macro-scale – and equal opportunities to all individuals on the micro-scale.
Bibliography
Ademmer, E., Langbein, J., 2019. Varieties of Limited Access Ordersin the Eastern Partnership countries: Implications for EU engagement. EU-STRAT Policy Paper.
BBC, 2021, EU agrees new Belarus sanctions after plane arrest, viewed 25 May 2021,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57236489>.
Belta, 2020, Belarus suspends dialogue on human rights with EU, viewed 18 May 2021,
<https://eng.belta.by/politics/view/fm-belarus-suspends-dialogue-on-human-rights-with-eu-135084-2020/>.
Beyer, J. and Wolff, S., 2016. Linkage and leverage effects on Moldova's Transnistria problem. East European Politics, 32(3), pp.335-354.
Blatter, J. and Haverland, M., 2014. Case studies and (causal-) process tracing. In Comparative policy studies (pp. 59-83). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Blockmans, S., Emerson, M., Kostanyan, H., Van der Loo, G., Cenușa, D., Gumene, V., Morcotylo, I., Pintea, D. and Popa, A., 2016. Deepening EU-Moldovan relations: what, why and how?. Rowman & Littlefield International.
Bosse, G., 2010. The EU's relations with Moldova: governance, partnership or ignorance?. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(8), pp.1291-1309.
Boulègue, M., Lutsevych, O. and Marin, A., 2018. Civil Society Under Russia’s Threat: Building Resilience in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Chatham House Policy Paper.
Bouris, D. and Schumacher, T., 2017. The revised European neighbourhood policy. Continuity and change in EU foreign policy.
Brudzińska, K., 2019. The Bumpy Road Towards the EU’s Common Foreign Policy. Globsec.
Policy Paper.
Brudzińska, K. and Markowitz, S., 2021. The Time for EU’s Common Foreign Policy is Now.
Globsec. Policy Paper.
Całus et al., 2018. Interdependencies of Eastern Partnership Countries with the EU and Russia:
Three Case Studies. EU-STRAT Working Paper No. 10.
Cebotari, S. and Budurina-Goreacii, C., 2013. The Republic of Moldova in the context of Eastern Partnership. Moldoscopie, 60(1), pp.125-139.
Cenusa, 2021. The new ‘exits’ and ‘turning points’ in Georgia and Moldova’s political crises.
New Eastern Europe.
College of Europe, 2019, International Conference — 10th Anniversary of the Eastern Partnership, viewed 8 April 2021, <https://www.coleurope.eu/events/international-conference-10th-anniversary-eastern-partnership>.
Collier, D. 2011. Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823-830.
Dias, V.A., 2013. The EU's post-liberal approach to peace: framing EUBAM's contribution to the Moldova–Transnistria conflict transformation. European Security, 22(3), pp.338-354.
Dovgal & Martin, 2020, Moldova plans to implement EU gas laws, viewed on 14 June 2021
<https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2154874-moldova-plans-to-implement-eu-gas-laws>.
EaP European School, 2021, viewed 22 May 2021, <http://www.eapeuropeanschool.eu/>.
EaP CSF, 2018, EaP CSF participated in the discussion on economic integration of migrants at the EaP Migration and Asylum Panel meeting, viewed 25 June 2021, <https://eap-csf.eu/eap-
csf-participated-in-the-discussion-on-economic-integration-of-migrants-at-the-eap-migration-and-asylum-panel-meeting/>.
EaP CSF, 2019, Public Administration Reform (PAR) Panel Seminar, viewed 16 May 2021,
<https://eap-csf.eu/eap-csf-attends-a-public-administration-reform-par-panel-seminar/>.
EaP CSF, 2020, Belarus Monitoring Mission Report, viewed 15 May 2021, < https://eap-csf.eu/project/belarus-monitoring-mission-report/>.
EaP CSF, 2021, EaP Platforms and Panels, viewed 4 May 2021, <https://eap-csf.eu/eap-platforms-and-panels/>.
ENI CBC, 2021, Programme, viewed 20 May 2021, <https://www.eni-cbc.eu/llb/en/programme/52>.
EUBAM, 2021, Who We Are, viewed 21 June 2021, <https://eubam.org/who-we-are/>.
European Commission, 2015, Action Document for “Strengthening Air Quality and Environmental Management in Belarus”, viewed 12 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/eni_2015_c2015_5288_final_annual_action_program_for_bel arus_airqualityenvironment.pdf>.
European Commission, 2016, Road Safety in the Republic of Moldova, viewed 15 June 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/themes/international/european_neighb ourhood_policy/european_eastern_partnership/doc/tenth-eastern-partnership-transport-panel/road_safety_in_moldova.pdf>.
European Commission, 2017, Action Document for "EU Good Governance Program in Belarus", viewed 17 May 2021, <https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/annexes/eni_2017_040284_eu_good_governance_program me.pdf>.
European Commission, 2019a, Action Document for EU – Belarus Legal Co-operation Program, viewed 17 May 2021, <https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/annexes/2_en_annexe_acte_autonome_nlw_part1_v1.pdf>
European Commission, 2019b, Association Implementation Report on Moldova, viewed 13
June 2021,
<https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/swd_2019_325_f1_joint_staff_working_paper_
en_v10_p1_1045191.pdf>.
European Commission, 2019c, Moldovagaz, viewed 16 June 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/tbrf_state_of_play_moldova_08 102019-final.pdf>.
European Commission, 2020a, Eastern Partnership, viewed 8 April 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/neighbourhood/eastern-partnership_en>.
European Commission, 2020b, European Neighbourhood Policy, viewed 14 April 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/neighbourhood/european-neighbourhood-policy_en>.
European Commission, 2020c, EU support to Young people in Belarus, viewed 18 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/eu_support_to_youth-by.pdf>.
European Commission, 2020d, EC Implementing Decision on the special measure in favor of the Republic of Belarus for 2020, viewed 18 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/c_2020_8954_f1_commission_implementing_decision_en_
v2_p1_1110385.pdf>.
European Commission, 2020e, Visa Facilitation and Readmission: the agreements between the European Union and Belarus enter into force, viewed 20 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/20200701_visa-facilitation-readmission-agreements-between-european-union-belarus-enter-into-force_en>.
European Commission, 2020f, Cross Border Cooperation, viewed 21 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/neighbourhood/cross-border-cooperation_en>.
European Commission, 2020g, Moldova, viewed 25 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/neighbourhood/countries/moldova_en>.
European Commission, 2020h, Facts and Figures about EU-Moldova Relations, viewed 12 June
2021,<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/eap_factsheet_moldova.pdf >.
European Commission, 2020i, 20 Deliverables for 2020 Monitoring – State of Play in February in 2020, viewed 22 June 2021, <https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/monitoring_spring_2020_20_deliverables_for_2020.pdf>.
European Commission, 2020j, Action Document for EU4Moldova: Local Communities, viewed
26 June 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/annexes/c_2020_4805_f1_annex_en_v2_p1_1086156_ann ex_1_eu4moldova_local_communities.pdf>.
European Commission, 2021a, EU-Belarus relations, viewed 3 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/neighbourhood/countries/belarus_en>.
European Commission, 2021b, Belarus, viewed 4 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/belarus/>.
European Commission, 2021c, Eastern Partnership Transport Panel, viewed 6 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/international/european_neighbourhood_policy/e astern_partnership/transport-panel_en>.
European Commission, 2021d, Moldova, viewed 26 May 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/moldova/>.
European Commission, 2021e, Visa liberalisation with Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, viewed 24 June 2021, <https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/international-affairs/eastern-partnership/visa-liberalisation-moldova-ukraine-and-georgia_en>.
European Council, 2014, Visa liberalization for Moldova, viewed 24 June 2021,
<https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21860/141491.pdf>.
European Council, 2016, Council conclusions on Belarus, viewed 29 April 2021,
<https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/15/fac-belarus-conclusions/>.
European Council, 2018, Council Conclusions on the Republic of Moldova, viewed 22 June 2021, <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6280-2018-INIT/en/pdf>.
European Council, 2020a, Facts and Figures about EU-Belarus Relations, viewed 30 April 2021,
<https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/44399/685-annex-5-c-belarus-factsheet.pdf>.
European Council, 2020b, 20 Deliverables for 2020, viewed 2 May 2021,
<https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eastern-partnership/20-deliverables-for-2020/>.
European Council, 2021a, EU relations with Belarus, viewed 21 April 2021,
<https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eastern-partnership/belarus>.
European Endowment for Democracy, 2019. Supporting people striving for democracy.
Annual Report.
European External Action Service, 2018, A Global Strategy for the European Union, viewed April 15, <https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/eu-global-strategy/49323/global-strategy-european-union_en.>.
European External Action Service, 2019, About the EEAS, viewed 15 April 2021,
<https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/82/about-european-external-action-service-eeas_en>.
European External Action Service, 2021, European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), viewed 16 April 2021, <https://eeas.europa.eu/diplomatic-network/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp/330/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp_en>.
EU Neighbors, 2021, EU4Youth: Employability and stability in Armenia, Belarus and Ukraine, viewed 23 May 2021, <https://www.euneighbours.eu/en/east/stay-informed/projects/eu4youth-employability-and-stability-armenia-belarus-and-ukraine>.
European Parliament, 2008, The Eastern Partnership: context, key Commission proposals and the EP's role. Directorate-General External Policies. Policy Department.
European Parliament, 2021, European Neighborhood Policy, viewed 3 May 2021, <
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/170/the-european-neighbourhood-policy>
European Union, 2021, Foreign and Security Policy, viewed 15 April 2021,
<https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/foreign-security-policy_en>.
EU4Business, 2021a, Initiative, viewed 10 May 2021, <https://eu4business.eu/initiative/>.
EU4Business, 2021b, EU Support to SMEs in Eastern Partnership in 2020, Portfolio Report,
viewed 10 May 2021,
<https://eu4business.eu/uploads/21/04/12/3ffcd64f4e4e86ca85efbdb092dd9872.pdf>.
EU4Moldova, 2021, “EU4Border Security”, viewed 26 June 2021,
<https://eu4moldova.eu/eu4border-security/>.
E5P, 2018, E5P projects in numbers, viewed 13 May 2021, <https://e5p.eu/belarus>.
E5P, 2021, E5P projects in Moldova, viewed 16 June 2021, <https://e5p.eu/moldova>.
Frear et al., 2018. Report on complementary and alternative modes of engagement with the Eastern Partnership countries. EU-STRAT Report Series.
Füle, Š., 2011. Eastern Partnership of the EU. Speech Delivered at Bratislava Global Security
Forum (GLOBSEC), viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_11_148>.
Gahler, M., 2021. Boosting the EU’s soft power in Eastern Partnership countries. European View, p.1781685821999847.fact
Gressel & Popescu, 2020. The best defence: Why the EU should forge security compacts with its eastern neighbours. European Council on Foreign Relations. Policy Brief.
Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), pp.1277-1288.
Human Rights House, 2019, EU-Belarus dialogue: human rights organizations issue joint position, viewed 18 May 2021, <https://humanrightshouse.org/articles/eu-belarus-dialogue-human-rights-organisations-issue-joint-position/>.
Karliuk, M., 2014. Legislative approximation and application of EU law in Belarus: ‘backdoor’
approximation. The Application of EU Law in the Eastern Neighbourhood of the European Union: Towards a Common Regulatory Space.
Klatt, M., 2011. Poland and its Eastern neighbours: Foreign policy principles. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 7(1), pp.61-76.
Korosteleva, E.A., 2016. The European Union and Belarus: democracy promotion by technocratic means?. Democratization, 23(4), pp.678-698.
Linkevičius, L., 2021. We are still searching for our strategy with Russia. New Eastern Europe.
Manners, I., 2001. Normative Power Europe: The international role of the EU.
Manners, I. and Whitman, R. eds., 2000. The foreign policies of European Union member states. Manchester University Press.
Michalski, A., 2005. The EU as a soft power: the force of persuasion. In The New Public Diplomacy (pp. 124-144). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Milewski, 2020. Challenging the status quo in Moldova. What now after Maia Sandu’s victory?
New Eastern Europe.
Moldovatransgaz, 2021, Company Presentation, viewed on 14 June 2021,
<https://moldovatransgaz.md/en/about/presentation>.
Morari, C., 2016. Eu Role in the Republic of Moldova European Integration Within Eastern Partnership. CES Working Papers, 8(3), p.410.
Müller, P., Kudrna, Z. and Falkner, G., 2014. EU–global interactions: policy export, import, promotion and protection. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), pp.1102-1119.
Nielsen, K.L., 2013. EU soft power and the capability-expectations gap. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(5).
Nitoiu, C. and Sus, M., 2019. Introduction: the rise of geopolitics in the EU’s approach in its Eastern neighborhood.
Nye Jr, J.S., 2004. Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public affairs.
Nye Jr, J.S., 2008. Public diplomacy and soft power. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 616(1), pp.94-109.
Nye, J., 2017. Soft power: the origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), pp.1-3.
OSCE, 2021, Conflict prevention and resolution, viewed on 23 June 2021,
<https://www.osce.org/mission-to-moldova/104529>.