EU strategy on Central Asia: Realpolitik after all

analysis

EU strategy on Central Asia: Realpolitik after all

By SRI ⋅ May 16, 2008 ⋅

Almost a year after the adoption of the EU Strategy on Central Asia, the prioritization of issues within EU-Central Asian cooperation have become clearer.

The planning stage of the strategy was marked by a controversy between proponents of an interest-based approach focusing on energy and security, led by Germany; and supporters of a value-based approach that stressed the importance of human rights and democratization, led by the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Hence, the strategy paper represented the minimal consensus among member states. Today, in spite of rhetoric, it has become clearer that in the implementation stage of the strategy the proponents of realpolitik have prevailed.

On closer inspection of the strategy paper and its annexes one cannot help but noticing that rather than a fully-fledged political strategy, one is looking at a framework paper outlining a handful of issues that are deemed to be of some importance. This loftiness is very likely a result of the different views among EU member states during the planning stage. Noticeably absent are benchmarks of any kind. This renders an independent monitoring or evaluation of the progress of the strategy in general, but especially in the area of human rights and rule of law, all but impossible. Nonetheless, EU officials are enthusiastic about the progress of the strategy’s implementation, saying that the results of the first year have exceeded initial expectations. They point to the increased numbers of meetings between EU officials and regional elites, and the prospect of opening more EU member states embassies and EC delegations in the region. In private conversation, however, some officials also acknowledge that progress in the areas of human rights and rule of law is difficult to achieve. Insiders of the human rights dialogues with Uzbekistan report that judging from their behavior, members of the Uzbek delegation in Ashgabat were obviously not interested in conducting a serious dialogue on the issue.

By Cornelius Graubner (CACI Analyst)