Participarea Republicii Moldova In Parteneriatul Estic Realizari Si Perspective

PARTICIPAREA REPUBLICII MOLDOVA ÎN PARTENERIATUL ESTIC: REALIZĂRI ȘI PERSPECTIVE

CONTENT

Declaration on own responsibility

List of of abbreviations

Introduction

Chapter I: Eastern Partnership – a program of the European Neighborhood Policy designated for countries from Eastern Europe

1.1. European Neighborhood Policy – aim, instruments and beneficiary countries

1.2. Aspects of the start of the Eastern Partnership program and its goals

Chapter II: Evolution of the participation of the Republic of Moldova in the Eastern Partnership program

2.1. Macroeconomic indicators and trade relations of the EaP participating countries with the European Union and other countries up to 2009

2.2 Economic evolutions of the countries after the launching of the Eastern Partnership program

2.3 Achievements and challenges of the Republic of Moldova within the Eastern Partnership program

Chapter III: The perspectives of development of the Republic of Moldova in the context of implementation of the Association Agreement with European Union and Deep & Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement

3.1. Eastern Partnership – way for the Republic of Moldova to join the European community

3.2 Situation in the region of Eastern Europe: challenges and opportunities

Conclusion

Bibliography

Annexes

List of abbreviations:

INTRODUCTION

The actuality of the topic cannot be disputed. The European integration has been an actual theme for the Republic of Moldova since 2005 and it represents a complex, difficult, wide and very ambitious process which represents a chance for Moldova to find finally its way of developing for next decades and its place in the geopolitical and geoeconomic map of the Europe. As usual each integration process has its stages through which the candidate country has to pass. This time the analyzed stage of integration in which is implicated the Republic of Moldova represents more a part of a bigger strategy of the European Union to have and develop its relations with Eastern European neighbouring countries: Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine and Caucasian countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia). The actuality of the Eastern Partnership is undisputable due to remarks of the EU officials regarding the fast progress in the implementation of reforms in Moldova and such remarks make a very good image of our country abroad.

The main goal of this paper is to make a deep analysis of the participation of the Republic of Moldova in the program of Eastern Partnership by studying the evolution from the economic and political points of view, the results got and what the citizens and the state can expect in the future as a result of this participation.

The main objectives of this thesis are:

To analyze the European Neighbourhood Policy as a strategy of the European Union to deal its relations with countries from immediate neighbourhood, its aim, tools and beneficiary countries.

To analyze the Eastern Partnership as a part of the European Neighbourhood Policy and reasons of its launching, objectives, expectations from the European Union side and achievements of the Eastern Partnership program.

To compare the main macroeconomic indicators of the Eastern Partnership participant countries before the start up of the Eastern Partnership program with those after years of participation in this project.

To analyze the evolution of participation of the Republic of Moldova within the Eastern Partnership program, achieved results and current and future challenges.

To prove the Eastern Partnership program can serve as a possibility for the Republic of Moldova to join the European community.

To analyze the current geopolitical situation in the Eastern Europe and which opportunities or challenges are created by such situation and the chances of the Republic of Moldova to integrate finally into the European Union.

The main result is the digest of the whole process of the participation of the Republic of Moldova in the Eastern Partnership program comparing with other participating in the partnership countries and its benefits for our country by mentioning the achieved results, perspectives and the impact on the process of Moldovan integration into the European Union.

The structure of the graduation paper consists of introduction, three chapters and final conclusion with following bibliography and annexes. In the introduction the aim, determined objectives of the graduation paper are listed. There are also described the actuality of the topic analyzed in the paper and short description of chapters.

In the first there are described the basic aspects of the external policy of the European Union by analyzing the program of the European Neighbourhood Policy as a way of cooperation between the European Union and its immediate neighbours and Eastern Partnership program as an initiative of the European Union, included in the strategy of the European Neighbourhood Policy, designed for cooperation with Eastern Europe countries, one of which is the Republic of Moldova.

In the second chapter the attention will be focused just on the Eastern Partnership countries, their situation in politics and economics up to 2009 and the evolution of the participating countries within the Eastern Partnership from the economic and political points of view after 2009. The way of analyzing the economic progress of the countries is the quantitative research, because there are used statistical data of the specialized bureaus, services and committees from the Eastern Partnership countries. The Moldovan participation in this project will be analyzed through the results achieved and challenges which the Republic of Moldova has to face in its road to EU integration.

In the third chapter there is approached the most actual events and tendencies in the European integration process of the Republic of Moldova due to the major events which happened in Moldova and its neighbor countries in the last couple of years. There will be also analyzed the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, expectations caused by the war in Ukraine, opportunities, difficulties and recent perspectives of the project of Eastern Partnership and an objective evaluation of chances of the Republic of Moldova to join the European Union in the near future.

The informational framework used for the elaboration of the graduation paper consists of sources like official web-pages of institutions like:

– European Parliament, European Union External Action Service, European Commission (previously named Commission of the European Communities);

– publications of institutions like: association from Moldova “Expert-grup”, ADEPT (Association for participative democracy) from Moldova, Moldovan statistical bureau, National Statistics Committee of the Republic of Belarus, State Statistics Service of Ukraine, National Statistics Office of Georgia, National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, The state Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan;

– informational portals: rflerl.org (Radio Free Europe & Free Liberty); unian.info (informational agency from Ukraine); infoeuropa.md, europolitics.ro and forbes.com.

Chapter I: EASTERN PARTNERSHIP – A PROGRAM OF THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY DESIGNED FOR COUNTRIES FROM EASTERN EUROPE

1.1. European Neighborhood Policy – aim, instruments and beneficiary countries

The external policy represents one of the most important parts of the activity of each country, political union, economic union, military block or any other political-economic structure. In case of those who tend to be important players in the world politics or world economy the external policy is essential or it plays a decisive role in keeping and improving their image in the world and the status of an influent actor in the world economy and politics. Still, the image within a region should not be neglected also, or the cooperation with the closest neighbors is in the interest both of the European Union and neighbor countries.

In March 2003 the European Commission presented its Communication “Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A new Framework for relations with Eastern and Southern Neighbours”, following a joint letter to the Council by the High Representative Mr Javier Solana and Commissioner Patten in August 2002. In June 2003 the Thessaloniki European Council appreciated this Communication as a solid basis for development a new range of policies towards the future (at those times participating) countries, defined overall principles, goals and identified possible incentives. The Thessaloniki European Council in June 2003 endorsed the Council conclusions and expected the work to be undertaken by the Council and Commission in putting together the various elements of these policies.

In July 2003 the Commission tabled a Communication “Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument” and determined a Wider Europe Task Force and a Wider Europe Inter-Service Group. In October 2003, the Council “invited the Commission with the contribution, where appropriate, of the High Representative to present in the light of the conclusions of June detailed proposals for the relevant action plans early in 2004 in order to take this matter forward by June 2004.”. The Council also welcomed the communication on the new neighbourhood instrument. The European Council of October 2003 welcomed the progress made on this initiative and urged the Council and the Commission to take it forward, with a view to ensuring a comprehensive, balanced and proportionate approach, including a financial instrument. The launch of the European Neighbourhood Policy was on 12th of May 2004, 11 days after the historic enlargement of May 2004, when 10 new countries joined the EU: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta. Of course, this enlargement was anticipated and the EU borders went more to the East and South. That is why the new at that time policy of neighbourhood was designed taking into consideration the new borders of the Union and geopolitical situation that could form after the 2004 EU enlargement.

Privileged relationship; mutual commitment of such common values as: human rights, good governance, democracy, rule of law, sustainable development, market economy principles are just a part of the offers of the European Union proposed to neighouring countries. The European Neighbourhood Policy was presented also as an exact set of opportunities offered by the European Union to ENP participants through such sector policies which cover a wide range of solutions in the fields as social policy, employment, trade, industrial policy and competition policy to development in agriculture and rural space, change in climate and environment. They included energy security strategy, research in innovation, transport, support to education, culture, youth and health. The European Neighbourhood Policy included political association, increased mobility and number of people-to-people contacts, economic integration as ways to offer to ENP participant countries all above mentioned things.

The European Neighborhood Policy points the way to enhanced cooperation in a number of defined fields, firstly to enable the European Union and partner parts to get the benefit of the structures which are in place in full amount. The Action Plans provided the most principal priorities to be addressed in the near future. Progress was under a careful monitoring in the committees and sub-committees formed under the agreements, and in the appropriate dialogues.

Action Plans are the documents which serves as instruments by which both EU and ENP participant countries had to cover two broad fields: engagements to specific actions which attest or strengthen pick-up to shared values and to specific tasks in the area of foreign policy and security policy; secondly, obligations to acgriculture and rural space, change in climate and environment. They included energy security strategy, research in innovation, transport, support to education, culture, youth and health. The European Neighbourhood Policy included political association, increased mobility and number of people-to-people contacts, economic integration as ways to offer to ENP participant countries all above mentioned things.

The European Neighborhood Policy points the way to enhanced cooperation in a number of defined fields, firstly to enable the European Union and partner parts to get the benefit of the structures which are in place in full amount. The Action Plans provided the most principal priorities to be addressed in the near future. Progress was under a careful monitoring in the committees and sub-committees formed under the agreements, and in the appropriate dialogues.

Action Plans are the documents which serves as instruments by which both EU and ENP participant countries had to cover two broad fields: engagements to specific actions which attest or strengthen pick-up to shared values and to specific tasks in the area of foreign policy and security policy; secondly, obligations to actions which will bring partner countries closer to the EU in a number of priority fields. Partners could get the possibility, for example, move towards the free circulation of goods by taking action to eliminate certain technical barriers, identified in the Action Plans. These plans include also a number of primacies intended to consolidate commitment to the values as: respect for human dignity, democracy, liberty, the rule of law, equality and respect for human rights. These plans include strengthening democracy and the rule of law, the judiciary reform and the fight against corruption and organized crime; respect of fundamental freedoms and human rights, including freedom of media and opinion, rights of minorities and children, gender equality, rights of trade union and other obligatory labor standards, and fight against the practice of torture and prevention of disease-treatment; support for the civil society development; and strong collaboration with the International Criminal.

As another instrument of the European Neighborhood Policy serves the effective political dialogue between the parties which, through the ENP, have to focus the efforts in order to strengthen their political dialogue. This comprises issues of foreign and security policy including regional and international issues, prevention of conflicts and crisis management and threats to common security such as terrorism and its main causes, proliferation of mass destruction guns and illegal traffic of arms. Another main primacy is the improvement of a shared duty between the European Union and partners for security and stability in the neighboring region.

Speaking about economic and social development policy, the European Neighborhood Policy proposed an approach with significant economic implications. This instrument stipulated enhanced trade relationships under preferential conditions and grown technical and financial help. It also offered a perspective to the neighbor countries to get a quota in the European Union Internal Market based on legislative and regulatory approach, the improved interconnectional links with the European Union and participation in a certain number of programs provided by the EU.

The economic gains from this process are considered to be well-grounded and to enhance both directly and indirectly. Directly, the fall of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade should bring about efficiency benefits and increase welfare through enhanced market integration. The indirect effects, especially on partner countries, are even bigger. By bringing the neighboring countries closer to the economic model of the European Union, also through the adoption and applying best international practices, the European Neighborhood Policy and particularly the proposed enlargement of the internal market, has the aim to make better the investment climate in participating countries. It has also to deliver a more transparent and stable medium with opportunities for private sector-led growth. A positive impact on foreign direct investment inflows is expected as a result of a more favorable policy medium, falling costs of trade and deal, relative advantageous labor costs and low risk.

The economic and social element of the Action Plans is consistent with partner countries’ own strategies. Emphasized dialogue is necessary through the relevant subcommittees and economic dialogues. It is also significant to guarantee a close coordination with the International Financial Institutions. These have precious contributions in doing in terms of policy advice and financing.

Intensified communication and co-operation on social dimension has to cover in particular fields like: socioeconomic development, structural reforms, employment and social policy. The European Union encourages partner countries’ governments’ efforts pursuing at reducing poverty and unemployment, creating jobs, promoting mandatory labor standards and social communication, reducing the inequalities between regions, making better the working conditions, increasing the effectiveness of social assistance and doing national welfare systems’ reform. The idea is to engage in a dialogue on employment and social policy developing an investigation and appreciation of the situation, to identify the most important challenges and to encourage policy replies. Solutions related to the mobility of workers, especially as greetings equal treatment or migrant workers’ conditions of living and working, and on co-ordination of social security continue to be addressed inside the framework of the association and co-operation agreements.

Regarding the trade and internal market, the Action Plans aim to set out ways and resources to assure both the European Union and its partners receive the full profits of the provisions on trade included in the current Partnership and Cooperation or Association Agreements.

Legislative and regulatory approach has to be pursued on the basis of agreed between parts priorities, concentrated on the most important units of the acquis for stimulation of trade and process of economic integration, considering the structure of the economy of the partner country, and the current level of harmonization with the legislation of the European Union. Both Partnership and Co-operation and Association Agreements comprise foresights on legislative approximation over a large area.

The European Neighborhood Policy also stipulates greater market opening according to the principles of the World Trade Organization. In the context of the Barcelona Process (better known as The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership was created in 1995 as a result of the Conference of Euro-Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs held in Barcelona under the Spanish presidency of the EU), an area free trade for goods has been agreed, and irregular liberalization has begun. The European Neighborhood Policy provides ways and resources to make liberalization of trade deeper and regional integration in coherence with the Euromed partnership (Barcelona process).

For the Eastern neighbouring countries, the fuller implementation of the provisions of the PCA associated to trade, accession to the World Trade Organization (in the case of Ukraine, which have not signed yet a WTO accession agreement) or full execution of the World Trade Organization accession agreement (in the case of Moldova), along with continued economic reform remain the most priority tasks.

Justice and Home Affairs: regarding the justice and home affairs, the ENP follows to pass by new dividing lines at the borders of the enlarged European Union. Increasing the effectiveness of the functioning of public institutions, with a view to ensuring high standards of administrative productivity, is a common interest between the European Union and the partner countries. Partners are facing risen challenges in the field of Justice and Internal Affairs, such as pressure of migration from developing countries, traffic of human beings and terrorism. Common work on these matters is a mutual interest. The identifying of priorities in each Action Plan depends on the particular issues which are most salient for the partner in question and for the European Union. Management of borders should be a priority in most of the Action Plans as it is only by common work that the European Union and its neighbors can deal the common borders more productive in order to facilitate legal movements. The Action Plans should thus include measures to improve the efficiency of border management, such as support for the creation and training of corps of professional non-military border guards and measures to make the secure of travel documents higher. The aim should be to facilitate mobility of persons, whilst keeping or establishing a high level of security.

Action Plan priorities could furthermore contain collaboration on migration, refuge, visa policies, efforts to fight against terrorism, organized crime, traffic of arms and drugs, money laundering and other types of economic crimes. Action Plans identifies exact steps to fortify the judiciary and to improve police and judicial collaboration, including in the area of family law as well as co-operation with bodies of the EU such as EUROPOL (European Police) and EUROJUST (European Justice). Action Plans reflect also the Union’s interest in concluding readmission agreements with the partner countries.

Energy security: Connecting the neighborhood supposes an increase the strategic partnership between the countries of EU and those of Neighborhood Policy in such fields as: energy, transport, environment, informing the society and research innovation.

In the fields of security of energy supply and energy safety and security, The Neighboring countries play a key role in the security of the European Union’s supply of energy. Many countries search enhanced access to the EU energy market, either as current or future suppliers or as transit countries. The countries from South Caucasus are also significant in terms of new energy supplies to the European Union from the area of Caspian Sea and Central Asia. Enhancing energy network connections between the EU and its partners show increased mutual interest. Moreover, increased energy collaboration gives mutual business possibilities and can also contribute to socio-economic progress and improvement to the environment. Action Plans contain exact steps to enhance energy dialogue and collaboration, and to foster forward gradual intersect of energy policies and the legal and regulatory atmosphere. This includes policies to encourage increased energy efficiency and energy economizations, as well as the use of energy gained from renewable sources and collaboration in energy technologies, such as clean coal. Opportunities for partners to take part to the Intelligent Energy Program and for their gradual implication in European Union regulatory practices and bodies (e.g., the European Gas and Electricity Regulatory) are explored.

The Action Plans are built on existing bilateral or regional initiatives, such as the European Union –Russia Energy Dialogue, the Tacis-funded Inogate program managing with the Caspian basin (oil and gas pipeline systems); energy collaboration in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (especially the creation of a Euro-Maghreb electricity market, which could be comprised with a gas market, and the agreed Euro-Mediterranean energy networks); increased energy collaboration between Israel and the Palestinian Authority; enhanced gas cooperation in the Mashrek region (all in the Euro-Mediterranean context), as well as Moldova’s status of the observer in the South East Europe Regional Energy Market initiative.

Transportation: Enhancing the trade and tourism between the EU and neighbouring countries requires effective, multimodal and sustainable systems of transportation. Just in case the transportation sectors of partner countries are capable to operate today’s complex flows of transports they will be competent to take full benefit of closer relationships and better market access.

The changes to the way the transportation sector is framed (e.g. introduction of competition conditions in port services and air transport, frameworks of modern regulation, more effective road haulage operations, inter-operability of systems of railways etc.) can have a significant influence on the effectiveness of transport. Another main assignment is to improve relations in aviation with partner countries with the goal to open up markets and to collaboration on safety and security issues. The Action Plans contain specific provisions to address these issues. They also contain specific disposals to address the vulnerability of transportation connections and services vis-à-vis terrorist attacks. The highest attention is paid to increase the security of air and maritime transport.

Environment: The problem of pollution of environment can be solved through a best mix of actions at the national, regional and international levels. Improved protection of the environment will lead to benefits felt by citizens and businesses in the European Union and in partnership participating countries too. It gives a possibility to pass by disputes over scattered resources as water. While the advantages of enhanced management of the environment are evident, the fact it usually represents a big short- and medium-term financial load for actors from public and private sectors is a challenge which is necessary to be taken into consideration during the process of planning and budget elaboration. Action Plans promote good governance of environment in partnership countries in order to impede pollution of the environment and its degradation, protect health of population, and get a more rational management of natural resources. Priorities are recognized in major areas such as quality of water, waste conduction, pollution of air and the prevention of the desertification. Regional collaboration between the partner countries needs to be further improved and the ratification and implementing of international agreements promoted.

Information society: Technology of communication and information is a topic with special significance for the progress of today’s economies and societies. In consequence, it is essential to encourage and help ENP countries in their strivings to benefit fully of the Information Society, and thus overcome a technology gap. In some countries of Southern Mediterranean partnership the Information Society is yet come in the sight, particularly where the market for mobile telephony is in an advanced phase of liberalization process. From the point of view of linking successful policy reform with efficiency in a specific sector, the Action Plans promote policy measures such as the separation of authorities of regulatory from operational functions, by promoting the foundation of independent authorities of regulation. The policy determines to assist governments which have the will to encourage the trade of incumbent operators. Action Plans recognize steps to promote new technologies and services of electronic communication making them available for business, public authorities and citizens.

Research and Innovation: The opening of the European Research Area to participating in European Neighborhood Policy countries is a challenge and an element of integration of the scientific memberships of neighboring countries. These countries already take part in priorities as energy, transport, environment, life sciences, alimentary safety or social problems in a knowledge based society, as good as in the specific actions for international collaboration concentrated on the necessities and potential of the participant countries at a regional level. In order to improve the national research systems’ contribution of the European Neighborhood Policy to economic rise and social welfare, developing the structural and institutional capacity activities need to be assisted. These activities are also identified and implemented through the Action Plans.

People-to-people, programs and agencies: An effective means to achieve the European Neighborhood Policy’s major goals is to link the people of the European Union and its neighbors, to encourage mutual understanding of each others’ cultures, attitudes and values, history and to eliminate error perceptions. Thus, in addition to links between public bodies or businesses, the European Neighborhood Policy promotes cultural, educational and more general societal connections between the European Union and its neighborhood. Human resources progress is a significant element to achieve goals as enhanced competitiveness, social inclusion and active participation of citizens. The lack in the knowledge society needs to be urgently fulfilled in order to address progress challenges in certain participating in ENP countries, especially in the Arab countries of Mediterranean area. The European Neighborhood Policy seeks to encourage actions in the field of public health in order to increase the general health status of the population and fight against specific issues as communicable diseases.

The ENP foresees the step-by-step opening of certain Community programs, based on reciprocal interests and disposable resources. Education, research, training and youth, environment, culture and audio and visual mass media are some of the fields to be explored. The YOUTH program, which already encourages direct communication and contacts between people and collaboration between actors of civil society in the field of youth, should be further improved. The programs “Tempus” and “Erasmus Mundus” offer opportunities to fortify contacts between students and teachers. The Action Plans establish concrete possibilities for partners to participate in such programs. As participation in programmes projected for Member States can add practical difficulties to third countries, the creation of dedicated programs driven specially to meeting partner countries’ necessities should also be explored. For instance, the European Commission has proposed to found “Tempus Plus”, a dedicated program which refers the education and training necessities of the countries covered by the European Neighborhood Policy. The reformation of learning systems and their modernization are a sine qua non term for the increasing of economic competitiveness and the social and political stability of partner countries and Tempus Plus could play a decisive role.

Several partners have pointed interest in taking participation, maybe as observers, in certain cooperative or rule-making Community fora. The Action Plans show possibilities taking into consideration the legal and administrative situation.

A European Neighbourhood Instrument was foreseen for the first time in the European Commission’s Communication in March of 2003. In the July of 2003 Communication “Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument” the newly designed instrument was beyond developed. From the point of view of the questions regarding legislation and budget to be solved, the Communication established a boarding which consists of two phases. Under this approach, for the period 2004-2006, the European Neighbourhood Programmes based on improved management among current instruments have been brought in, while after 2006 a new neighbourhood instrument was going to be established.

The ENP had a period transition from 2004 until 2006 when preceding policies had time to function on intersect and conformation, and full integration of institutions was started during the new multi-annual frame from 2007 till 2013. This was also when the instruments of funding for the European Neighborhood Policy were conformed. Before that, all instruments of policy had their own funding instrument. From 2007, most of the financing was centralized in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The ENPI funds a range of localized programmes, and it finances facilities in investment process. The thematic programmes which comprise European Neighborhood Policy countries are partially financed by the localized programmes, and partially by apart funding instruments.

The European Neighborhood Policy Instrument finances all local programs; it funds regions-linking programs, regional programs, bilateral ones and the European Union – Russian Federation strategic partnership. The cross-border program is co-financed by the structural funds due to involvement of areas inside the European Union in cross-border programs. The parts of cross-border programs that happen inside the European Union are financed by the structural funds (Table 1). The bilateral programs attract the biggest share of financing.

Table 1: Structure of the European Neighborhood Policy Instrument

Sources: Eastern Partnership Community (2011a), European Commission (2007a1-2007d1)

The European Union has a diapason of thematic programs available for the European Neighborhood Policy countries. Most of these programs are without an independent funding instrument, but they are financed by the closest localized program. This means, for example, that any student exchange activities in, for instance, Armenia are financed through the Armenian bilateral program (COM 628, 2004). However, for some thematic programs it is considered necessary to have independent instruments, either because they are independent on bilateral or regional collaboration, or because the aims of the instrument do not superpose with the larger aim of the European Neighborhood Policy.

The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) for instance has its own instrument so it can decide of projects that are without necessity approved by the receiving country (EuropeAid, 2011). The Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Cooperation (INSC) also has its own financing instrument, and it is mostly active in Russian Federation and Ukraine. Because some European Neighborhood Policy countries are relatively poor, even the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) has some activities in European Neighborhood Policy countries. Finally, the Instrument for Stability is designed to assure economic stability in the European Union, and if it is necessary it also supports neighboring countries (Table 1).

Finally, the European Neighborhood Policy Instrument also concerns a range of facilities for investment process. Leveraging grants from the European Neighborhood Policy Instrument, the European Investment Bank invests in interregional or regional projects either through the interregional or regional investment facilities. The Neighborhood Investment Fund was launched in 2007 to enable interregional investment.

The investment facility available in the region of Mediterranean Sea is called the FEMIP (Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership), and it has functioned since 2002.

Before 2002 the European Investment Bank did have an investment mandate for the region. In the eastern region, the Eastern Investment Bank has also had an investment mandate, but since 2009 it has its own investment facility called the Eastern Partners Facility (EPF) (Table 1).

The specific level of financing received by the different localized programmes and investment facilities is difficult to trace. The European Union has published indicative programs that project the budget for the different localized programs over the 2007-2010 period, and for the years 2011-2013. However, some of these documents cannot be found in the European Union document repository, like the indicative program for the southern European Neighborhood Policy countries in the years 2011-2013, or the indicative program for the European Union – Russian Federation strategic partnership over the same period. It is not clear if these documents have not already been authored or if they have not already been made available.

The European Union does publish every year the accounting data, but European Union accounting data is only given on an aggregated level, in which the European Neighborhood Policy Instrument has a single budget line, or on a highly disaggregated level.

The European Neighborhood Policy is addressed to the European Union’s existing neighbours and to those that have drawn closer to the EU as a result of enlargement. In Europe this applies to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. The EU and Russia have decided to develop their strategic partnership further through the creation of four common spaces, as defined at the 2003 St. Petersburg summit. In the Mediterranean region, the ENP applies to all the non-EU participants in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona process), which is pursuing its relations with the EU in a pre-accession framework. The members of the Barcelona process were: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, the Palestinian Authority, the Republic of Tunisia and Syria. The Commission also recommended the inclusion of the Caucasus countries: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia within the scope of the European Neighborhood Policy. [3]

Relations between the EU and most countries participating in the ENP are already highly developed. In Eastern Europe, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements provide the basis for contractual relations. In the Mediterranean, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the “Barcelona Process”) provides a regional framework for co-operation which is complemented by a network of Association Agreements. [3]

Of course the managing of such big aims in a quite big neighboring to EU area needs a very good structure and plan and that was the reason why ENP was differentiated in its implementation to different partner countries. Surely, it was important to establish and keep implementing both across the European Union’s external borders and among the EU’s neighbours – especially among those that are geographically close to each other. In doing so it must be taken into consideration that certain circumstances in different regions of the European Union’s neighborhood differ. [3]

European Union sustain regional collaboration in the East and South, and for specific projects implemented in these regions, coming from existing European Union’s programs (Tacis, Meda, Phare) or their successors, as well as from Neighbourhood Programmes and, further, the European Neighbourhood Instrument. [3]

The European Neighborhood Policy was initially created to incorporate these countries: Israel, Jordan, Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine. All these countries had already formalized before the 2004 their contacts with the European Union in different forms: either Association Agreements (AA’s) in the case of the Mediterranean countries or Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCA’s) for the eastern European Neighborhood Policy countries. Countries like the Republic of Belarus, Libya and Syria received the opportunity to join the European Neighborhood Policy as soon as they managed the reforms in the internal policy that could permit them to sign Association Agreements or Partnership and Cooperation Agreements. The Caucasus countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, also expressed their will to be included in the European Neighborhood Policy despite the absence of direct border the European Union. In June 2004, it was decided the approval of becoming part of the ENP to these countries. [4]

Russian Federation was also asked to participate in the European Neighborhood Policy, but in negotiations it was decided a separate political instrument had to be developed to guide Russian-European foreign policy. This separate policy instrument, named the EU-Russia strategic partnership, has same aims to the European Neighborhood Policy and is financed through the same funding instrument, but differs in terminology. Russian Federation for instance did not sign an action plan. [3]

1.2 Aspects of the start of the Eastern Partnership program and its goals

Creation, circumstances of the creation and the aims of the program

The European Union is the politico-economic union which tends to position and keep itself as an important political and economic force in the Eurasia and the world. In case of neighbor to EU countries, the cooperation between the European community and those countries is deeper and in some cases these countries are seen as potential candidates to integration to EU. That is why the European Union provides initiatives for deeper and more comprehensive cooperation with neighboring countries via its foreign relations instrument which seeks to tie the countries to the east and south of the European territory of the EU to the Union. This instrument is named the European Neighborhood Policy.

One of such initiatives, part of the EU Neighborhood Policy is the program named “Eastern Partnership”, which intends to provide a venue for discussions of trade, economic strategy, travel agreements, and other issues with European Union’s eastern neighbors: 6 post-Soviet countries. These countries are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The idea was initiated by Poland, but the project of the partnership was coordinated together with Sweden. At the EU's General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 26 May 2008, the project was presented by the foreign ministers of initiative countries: Poland and Sweden. The first discussions were at the European Council on 19 and 20 June 2008. The discussions were contradictory. While countries as Czech Republic, Poland and other East European countries endorsed the proposal completely, the states as Germany, France, and others were not quite happy with the possibility that the Eastern Partnership could be seen as a stepping stone to membership, especially after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, a decision which is seen as not the best one. One theme to debate was also the inviting of Belarus to participate in this partnership due to the repressive regime of Belarusian president Aliaksandr Lukashenko, who is called as the “last dictator from Europe”.

Russia voiced concerns over the Eastern Partnership. Kremlin saw it as an attempt to expand the European Union's “sphere of influence” in the quest for oil. After the military conflict in Georgia from august of 2008, Russia also expressed concerns that the EU was putting undue pressure on Belarus by suggesting it might be marginalized if it follows Russia in recognizing the independence of the Georgian separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moreover, the Russian foreign affairs minister Sergey Lavrov stated: “Is this promoting democracy or is it blackmail? It's about pulling countries from the positions they want to take as sovereign states”. Russia also accused the EU of trying to carve out a new sphere of influence, which the EU denied, stating that they were "responding to the demands of these countries…and the economic reality is that most of their trade is done with the EU". A consequence or not, but the war of 2008 in northern Georgia accentuated the necessity of activating the Eastern Partnership, or the fears of bad pressures of Kremlin over the potential EaP countries were bigger.

The Eastern Partnership was officially launched when the Czech Republic invited the leaders of the six members of the initiative at the summit which was at Prague on 7th of May 2009. There were many aims established for this partnership:

New association agreements including deep and comprehensive free trade agreements for those willing and ready to take on the far-reaching commitments with the EU that these entail;

Comprehensive programs funded by the EU to improve partners’ administrative capacity;

Gradual integration into the EU economy (with the asymmetry appropriate to the partners’ economies) including legally binding commitments on regulatory approximation;

Encourage partners to develop a free trade network between themselves which could in the longer term join up into a Neighborhood Economic Community;

Enhanced energy security for the EU and its Eastern Partners;

Creation of four multilateral policy platforms: on Democracy, good governance and stability; Economic integration and convergence with EU policies, Energy security; and Contacts between people to further support partners' individual reform efforts;

Integrated Border Management Program; promotion of Regional electricity markets, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources; development of the Southern energy corridor; and cooperation on prevention, preparedness for and response to natural and man-made disasters. [2]

Financial part of the program

Of course such an initiative needed serious investments. The Eastern Partnership benefited from Additional Financial Assistance – a substantial increase from € 450 million in 2008 to € 785 million in 2013. This means a supplementary envelope of € 350 million in addition to the planned resources for 2010-2013. Moreover we will redeploy €250 million already allocated to the ENP regional programs. However, some events influenced the decisions regarding funding in some countries of Eastern Partnership. For example, Ukraine beneficiated of more money in 2014, in the year characterized not only by military conflict in the Eastern Ukraine, but also by economic problems. The EU disbursement added to the €860 million provided so far under the two ongoing Macro-financial assistance programs for Ukraine in 2014. The final disbursement of €250 million is expected to be made by spring 2015, provided that Ukraine shows satisfactory progress with the accompanying reforms in the areas of public finance management and anti-corruption, trade and taxation, the energy sector and the financial sector. In case of Moldova, the years 2013 and 2014 were remarked by economic embargoes on Moldovan agricultural production imposed by Russian Federation and losses as result of such restrictive measure imposed by Russia. There was signed a document – the Agreement on Funding Support Program to establish the Free Trade Area – provides assistance worth 30 million euro. This program will help public institutions, citizens and the business community to make full use of the open European market for Moldovan products. Still, the main document is the Understanding Memorandum on the Unique Strategic Framework for EU support to Moldova for 2014-2017. The funding is provided to implement the Free Trade Agreement. According to the Memorandum, over the next three years, Moldova will receive from the EU financial support worth up to 410 million euros. The funding will go primarily for public administration reform, agricultural and rural development, police reform and border management. These investments are important in the Eastern Partnership countries where the rates of immigration are not small and the impact of this phenomenon is strongly felt. [3]

Conclusion

European Union strategy of neighoburhood policy with its initiatives designed for specific regions intended to avoid the creation str

Chapter II: EVOLUTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA IN THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

2.1. Macroeconomic indicators and trade relations of the EaP participating countries with the European Union and other countries up to 2009

The launch of the Eastern Partnership program was a quite ambitious idea taking into consideration the beginning of the world financial crisis in the years 2007-2008. In those years there appeared first economic problems in some of the countries of the European Union as: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland in form of external debt crisis and in Baltic countries & Slovakia in form of economic contractions. Despite economic difficulties within EU, the Union’s authorities have not given up in idea of building a strong relationship with its immediate neighbors from the East and the program of Eastern Partnership was launched in 2009. The perspectives, including the economic ones, sounded very good for the Eastern Partnership participant countries: Republic of Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, even if the situation in those countries was not better than inside the European Union.

Ukraine: The financial crisis affected mostly the Ukraine with a significant fall of the Ukrainian currency hryvnia and rise of inflation. The exchange rate of the Ukrainian hryvina, known previously for its stability, felt from 5.5 UAH for 1 US dollar to almost 8 UAH for a US dollar at the beginning of the 2009. It had been the biggest fall of the Ukrainian currency since the 1998 financial crisis in Russia which affected the Ukraine also and the exchange rate felt from 1.8 UAH for 1 USD to 5.5 UAH for 1 USD. The level of Gross Domestic Product for Ukraine in year 2009 was UAH 627.476 Billion (USD 69.72 billion). Comparing with the year 2008, the indicator showed a significant GDP fall of 14.8 %. Taking into account the population of more than 45 million people, the GDP per capita of 2009 was just UAH 19.871 (USD 2550.45). The percentage of investments from the Gross Domestic Product was 17.06%. Unfortunately, the inflation was very high, 15.9 %. The crisis affected cruelly the volumes of import and export. The statistical data show a decrease of imports by 41.62% comparing with 2008 and a fall of exports by 24.22%. The unemployment rate was 8.84%.

In 2009 Ukraine was a major importer of gas from Russian Federation. Still, the negotiations regarding gas price were very difficult in those years and resulted at the beginning of 2009 in a short gas crisis when the Russian Federation suspended the transit of gas to Europe through Ukraine which caused many incommodities in European Union countries which were also major importers of Russian gas. Russia tried to determine control over the resources of natural gas and circuit of Ukraine but these attempts came away without a result. It also tried to export natural gas to Europe in an alternative way: by finding a way occurring Ukraine but even that move brought any results. Overall amount of commodities imported in Ukraine in this period was $9.78 billion.
In its Ukraine import and export data State Committee of Statistics has revealed that percentage of grains in Ukraine export for first quarter of 2009 has gone up to 9.2 percent. In first quarter of 2008 fiscal this was 2.1 percent. Percentage of oilseeds in this export in first quarter of 2009 fiscal was 2.7 percent. In first quarter of 2008 this was 0.5 percent. As per Ukraine trade statistics provided by State Committee of Statistics there are 189 trading partners of Ukraine. In this period it amounted for 19 percent of goods and services exported by Russia and 4.8 percent of Turkey’s exports. As far as imports go again Russia was first name. It was responsible for 20.5 percent of goods and services imported by Ukraine.

Belarus: The level of Gross Domestic Product for Belarus in year 2009 was UAH 627.476 Billion (USD 69.72 billion). Comparing with the year 2008, the indicator showed a significant GDP fall of 14.8 %. Taking into account the population of more than 45 million people, the GDP per capita of 2009 was just UAH 13.651 (USD 1752.4). The percentage of investments from the Gross Domestic Product was 17.06%. Unfortunately, the inflation was very high, 15.9 %. The crisis affected cruelly the volumes of import and export. The statistical data show a decrease of imports by 41.62% comparing with 2008 and a fall of exports by 24.22%. The unemployment rate was 8.84%.

Belarus’ economy is dominated by services as well as industrial products. The majority of Belarus trade is dominated by products such as tractors, trucks, motorcycles, televisions, metal-cutting machine tools, earthmovers, fertilizer, textiles, radios, refrigerators and synthetic fibers. The recession marred the high trade amount that Belarus managed in 2008 at $33.04 billion. In 2009, the exports were low at $18.04, although with plans to optimize on neighbors such as Russia, the trade volume is likely to go up.

Following are the products that feature prominently in Belarus export:

Machinery and equipment

Mineral products

Chemicals

Metals

Textiles

Foodstuffs 

The major export partners are:

Russia- 32.3%

Netherlands- 16.5%

Ukraine- 8.5%

Latvia- 6.5%

Poland- 5.5%

UK- 4.3%

As far as imports are concerned, the trends show a decrease, which is a positive sign for maintaining a positive trade balance. The import volume decreased from $39.61 billion in 2008 to $22.4 billion in 2009.

The main products that are imported are:

Mineral products

Machinery and equipment

Chemicals

Foodstuffs

Metals 

The main Belarus import partners are:

Russia- 59.4%

Germany- 7.1%

Ukraine- 5.3%

Although the country experienced a negative growth industrial rate in 2009 at -7%, with new policies, which look to strengthen trading relations with adjoining countries as well as IMF guidelines, Belarus trade will have a brighter future.

Also, the World Bank has laid down guidelines for Belarus trade to flourish and the administrators have already started instrumental changes, such as devaluing the currency, to give trade an impetus.

Azerbaijan: The level of Gross Domestic Product for Azerbaijan in 2009 was Azerbaijani manats 20.26 Billion (USD 25.32 billion). Comparing with the year 2008, the GDP indicator showed an impressive growth of 9.3 %, which is not so far one of the biggest GDP growths registered by the Azerbaijani Gross Domestic Product. Azerbaijan's GDP grew 41.7% in the first quarter of 2007, possibly the highest of any nation worldwide. Such rates cannot be sustained, but despite reaching 26.4% in 2005, and 2006 over 34.6% (world highest), in 2008 dropped to 10.8%. The GDP per capita of 2009 was just AZM 2.278 (USD 2847.5). The percentage of investments from the Gross Domestic Product was 18.37%. The budget deficit equaled 1.3% of GDP in 2000. The inflation was quite low, 1.56 %. The crisis affected cruelly the volumes of import and export. The statistical data show a decrease of imports by 5.31% comparing with 2008, but an increase of exports by 9.50%. The unemployment rate was just 6.05%.

Azerbaijan's high economic growth has been attributable to large and growing oil and gas exports, but some non-export sectors also featured double-digit growth, including construction, banking, and real estate. Oil exports through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, the Baku-Novorossiysk, and the Baku-Supsa pipelines remain the main economic driver, but efforts to boost Azerbaijan's gas production are underway. The eventual completion of the geopolitically important Southern Gas Corridor between Azerbaijan and Europe will open up another, albeit, smaller source of revenue from gas exports. Azerbaijan has made only limited progress on instituting market-based economic reforms. Pervasive public and private sector corruption and structural economic inefficiencies remain a drag on long-term growth, particularly in non-energy sectors. Several other obstacles impede Azerbaijan's economic progress, including the need for stepped up foreign investment in the non-energy sector and the continuing conflict with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Trade with Russia and the other former Soviet republics is declining in importance, while trade is building with Turkey and the nations of Europe. Long-term prospects depend on world oil prices, Azerbaijan's ability to negotiate export routes for its growing gas production, and its ability to use its energy wealth to promote growth and spur employment in non-energy sectors of the economy.

Major exportable commodities of the country are oil and gas, machinery and cotton. The exports partners of the country are Germany, Italy, Turkey, Russia, Georgia and France. Important importable commodities in the country are fuel and energy, food and the capital goods. Important imports partners of the country are Russia, Germany, Turkey, China and Italy.

Armenia: The level of Gross Domestic Product for Ukraine in year 2009 was 3.14 Trillion Armenian drams (USD 8.65 billion). Comparing with the year 2008, the indicator showed a significant GDP fall of 14.15 %. Taking into account the population of more than 3.25 million people, the GDP per capita of 2009 was just AMD 966 810 (USD 2661.3). The percentage of investments from the Gross Domestic Product was very high – 33.82%. The inflation was 3.54 %. The crisis affected cruelly the volumes of import and export. The statistical data show a decrease of imports by 41.62% comparing with 2008 and a fall of exports by 24.22%. The unemployment rate was 8.84%.

After several years of double-digit economic growth, Armenia faced a severe economic recession with GDP declining more than 14% in 2009, despite large loans from multilateral institutions. Sharp declines in the construction sector and workers' remittances, particularly from Russia, led the downturn

Armenia trade is highly dependent on multilateral agreements with Soviet Union's Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It has free trade agreements with Russia, Kyrgyz, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Moldova, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Besides, EU also has significant share in Armenia trade figures.

Major export items for Armenia are pig iron, nonferrous metals, unwrought copper, diamonds, mineral products and foodstuff. As per WTO statistics, the country ranks 145 in terms of merchandising export and 123 in the export of commercial services.

Russia is the biggest partner for Armenia trade imports. As per 2008 figures, Russia enjoys 19.3% share of the total imports to Armenia, followed by China (8.7%) and Ukraine (7%). Major import items include petroleum, oil products, natural gas, tobacco and diamond.

Since the 1990s, Armenia economy has been suffering from huge trade deficits. Despite strategic measures, the rate of growth of imports has been higher than that of exports. The rising trade deficit is an impediment to the economic growth of the country. A better managed trade equation can be achieved by diversifying the country’s economic profile and fostering a range of industrial sectors.

Georgia: The level of Gross Domestic Product for Georgia in year 2009 was 10.362 Billion Georgian lari (USD 5.98 billion). Comparing with the year 2008, the indicator showed a fall of 3.77 %. The GDP per capita of 2009 was just GEL 4.101 (USD 2455.17). The percentage of investments from the Gross Domestic Product was 13.14%. The inflation was very low, just 2.98 %. The tendency of establishing a good trade balance was followed successfully. The statistical data show a decrease of imports by 12.28% comparing with 2008 and an increase of exports by 8.3%. A big problem was unemployment – rate of 16.85%.

Georgia's main economic activities include cultivation of agricultural products such as grapes, citrus fruits, and hazelnuts; mining of manganese, copper, and gold; and producing alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages, metals, machinery, and chemicals in small-scale industries. The country imports nearly all its needed supplies of natural gas and oil products. It has sizeable hydropower capacity that now provides most of its energy needs. Georgia has overcome the chronic energy shortages and gas supply interruptions of the past by renovating hydropower plants and by increasingly relying on natural gas imports from Azerbaijan instead of from Russia. Construction of the Baku-T'bilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the South Caucasus gas pipeline, and the Kars-Akhalkalaki Railroad are part of a strategy to capitalize on Georgia's strategic location between Europe and Asia and develop its role as a transit point for gas, oil, and other goods. The expansion of the South Caucasus pipeline, as part of the Shah Deniz II Southern Gas Corridor project, will result in a $2 billion foreign investment in Georgia, the largest ever in the country. Gas from Shah Deniz II is expected to begin flowing in 2019. Georgia's economy sustained GDP growth of more than 10% in 2006-07, based on strong inflows of foreign investment and robust government spending. However, GDP growth slowed following the August 2008 conflict with Russia, and sunk to negative 4% in 2009 as foreign direct investment and workers' remittances declined in the wake of the global financial crisis. The government is finalizing its 2020 Economic Development Strategy and has launched the Georgia Co-Investment Fund, a $6 billion private equity fund that will invest in tourism, agriculture, logistics, energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing.

Georgia trade: Georgia occupies a very important position in context of oil export from Caspian Sea to markets in west as per reports on Georgia export, import and trade. Recently on May 7th 2009 Georgia entered into a trade agreement with European Union.

Local businessmen in Georgia: It is expected that native entrepreneurs would be benefited as a result of this surge in Georgia export, import and trade. There are a few goods exported by Georgia that are not levied with any import charges.

Georgia exports to European Union: In fiscals 2007 and 2008 amount of goods and services exported to European Union by Georgia has increased at a significant rate. However, types of goods that are exported have stayed same. This indicates that business establishments in Georgia have not been able to make use of any extra preferences of European Union in case of trade

Export of Georgia nuts: Nuts are major export item as far as Georgia. Nuts exported by them are equivalent to seven percent of world market for nuts. As many as 16 members of European Union import nuts from Georgia.

Georgia import and export 2008

In fiscal Georgia exported goods and services worth $2.761 million. Its major export commodities were scrap metal, ores, wine, vehicles, mineral water and fruits and nuts. At that same period it also imported goods and services worth $7.304 billion. It basically imported goods and services such as fuels, grain and other foods, vehicles, pharmaceuticals and machinery and parts.

Georgia export and import partners

Turkey has always been major export and import partners of Georgia. In 2007 it accounted for 13 percent of Georgia’s exports and 14 percent of its imports. In that same period USA were responsible for 11 percent of exports made by Georgia and 5 percent of its imports.

Moldova: The level of Gross Domestic Product for Moldova in year 2009 was MDL 60.43 Billion (USD 5.43 billion). Comparing with the year 2008, the indicator showed a significant GDP fall of 5.99 %. The GDP per capita of 2009 was just MDL 16.398 (USD 1524.4). An extremely good indicator was the share of investments from the Gross Domestic Product, which resulted in 20.23% of the GDP. The inflation was just about 0.44%. Still, the regional crisis affected significantly the volumes of import and export. The statistical data show a decrease of imports by 25% comparing with 2008 and a fall of exports by 7%. The unemployment rate was 6.4%.

Despite recent progress, Moldova remains one of the poorest countries in Europe. With a moderate climate and good farmland, Moldova's economy relies heavily on its agriculture sector, featuring fruits, vegetables, wine, and tobacco. Moldova also depends on annual remittances of about $1.6 billion from the roughly one million Moldovans working in Europe, Russia, and other former Soviet Bloc countries. With few natural energy resources, Moldova imports almost all of its energy supplies from Russia and Ukraine. Moldova's dependence on Russian energy is underscored by a growing $5 billion debt to Russian natural gas supplier Gazprom, largely the result of unreimbursed natural gas consumption in the separatist Transnistria region.

The major exportable items of the country are petroleum, bauxite and aluminum, chemicals, steel, agricultural Moldova has experienced both balance of trade deficit as well as balance of payment deficit over various years.

Major Exportable items of the country are vegetables, manufactures, animal products and textiles. Exports partners of the country are Italy, Germany, Russia, and Romania.

Important importable commodities of the country are Chemicals, textiles, fuels, and mineral products. It imports from the countries such as Germany, Russia, Italy and Ukraine.

2.2 Economic evolutions of the countries after the launching of the Eastern Partnership program

Ukraine: After cruel crisis of the years 2008-09, the economy of Ukraine began to show signs of recovery. The rate of GDP growth in 2010 was 4.1%, resulting finally in a Gross Domestic Product of USD 136.417 billion. The GDP per capita in 2010 resulted in USD 2979.67. The inflation rate fell down to 9.36% and the share of investments was 18.46% of the Gross Domestic Product. The unemployment rate fell down from 8.84% to 8.09%. The temp of economic recovery in 2010 was also the increase of trade. Both exports and imports showed a significant growth: 9.29% in case of exports and 15.01% in case of imports.

The performances of the Ukrainian economy continued in 2011. The Gross Domestic Product grew by 5.19% and the GDP indicator in Ukrainian hryvens overcame the number of 1 trillion, resulting finally in UAH 1.30 trillion, or 163.42 million in US dollars. The GDP per capita increased also to USD 3583.97 (UAH 28555.49). The share of investments from GDP continued its rise up to 20.73% from Gross Domestic Product. The rapid rhythm of fall of inflation was kept in 2011, resulting in a final result of 4.56%, more than twice lower than in 2010. The unemployment rate was 7.85%. The trade results were bigger: exports increased by 6.45%, imports – by 21.93%.

The overall macroeconomic “picture” of Ukraine in 2012 showed a serious let-down. The rate of GDP growth fell down by almost 20 times: from 5.19% in 2011 to 0.25% in 2012. The growth of GDP expressed in US dollars was just USD 13 billion, resulting in final Gross Domestic Product of USD 176.52 billion (UAH 1.41 trillion). Per capita, the GDP in 2012 was USD 3883.75 (UAH 31048.09). The share of investments felt down to 18.4%. The unemployment rate was 7.52%. The apparent good temp of inflation fall resulted in a problem called “deflation”: for the first time in the modern Ukrainian history the inflation was negative. The deflation was 0.20%. The trade registered serious slow-downs. The exports’ growth was just 1.72%, imports – 2.06%.

In 2013 the macroeconomic situation in Ukraine was not better. The rate of GDP rise was just 1%, registering the final Gross Domestic Product of USD 178.313 billion (UAH 1.45 trillion). The GDP per capita also increased in 2013, to US dollars 3929.97 (32066.22 Ukrainian hryven’). The investments registered a decrease, resulting in just 15.7% share of GDP. The unemployment rate decreased slowly, just to 7.17%. The deflation turned back into inflation, showing an inflation rate of 0.49%. The trade rhythm was negative, registering slowdown both in exports (-6.72%) and imports (-4.12%).

The political crisis in Ukraine, civil riots, radical change of the government, annexation of Crimea peninsula by Russian Federation, the war in Eastern Ukraine, the embargo of Russia on main Ukrainian products were the elements which heated cruelly the economy of Ukraine in 2014. Even if the GDP expressed in Ukrainian hryven’ increased by almost 700 billion units from 1.45 trillion to UAH 1.52 trillion, the indicator expressed in United States’ dollar showed a serious decrease by 24.36%, from USD 178.313 billion in 2013 to USD 134.88 billion. Such phenomenon was caused by the devaluation of the hryvnia on the background of political events happened in Ukraine. Of course the investments climate could not be unaffected by these political events: the share of investments from GDP was just 8.16%. The unemployment grew up to 9.97%. After 2 years of very low inflation, this rate increased dramatically to 18.97%. The exports decreased by 8.40%, imports – by 21.35%.

Belarus : Even if in 2011 the country experienced crisis caused by Russian interdictions on Belarusian production, high inflation and rapid devaluation of Belarusian ruble by almost 3 times, the temp of rise of Gross Domestic Product expressed in US dollars kept the same positive trend. The causes were a much higher increase of GDP expressed in national Belarusian currency (mostly due to increase of prices and Belarusian ruble’s devaluation) and maintained increase in exports and imports.

In 2010 the registered GDP was in amount of USD 55.22 billion (BYR 164.476 trillion), showing an increase of 12.23%. The GDP per capita was also not bad: USD 5812.73 or BYR 17.313 million. The following year 2011 was the year of crisis. The above mentioned causes brought to an increase by 8.16% of GDP expressed in US dollars (from USD 55.22 billion to USD 59.73 billion). Still, we must see the GDP growth expressed in Belarusian currency: from BYR 164.476 trillion in 2010 to BYR 297.157 trillion in 2011 (an increase by 80.66%). The GDP per capita was also not bad for such a difficult economic year: USD 6300 (BYR 31.342 million).

The year 2012 was the first one after the crisis, but the effects were still felt. Even if the GDP growth resulted in the same amount as in the year before (around 4 billion US dollars), the rate expressed in percents was lower: just 6%, from USD 59.73 billion in 2011 to USD 63.62 billion in 2012. The same indicator, but expressed in Belarusian rubles was again much higher: 78.47%. In 2011 the GDP expressed in BYR was 297.157 trillion and in 2012 the Gross Domestic Product was BYR 530.355 trillion. The GDP per capita registered a small increase in 2012: from 6300 US dollars (BYR 31.342 million) to USD 6721 (BYR 56,033 million) in 2012. Still, these mostly similar rates increased could be seen as a sign of slower tempo of economic development taking into account the totally different rates of inflation resulted in the years 2011 and 2012: 108.7% and, respectively, 21.77%.

In the succeeding 2013 year, the economy of the Republic of Belarus continued its recovery. The rate of GDP growth was twice higher than in 2012: 12.71% in 2013 comparing with 6% in 2012. Twice higher was also the growth of Gross Domestic Product in 2013 expressed in United States’ dollars – 8.09 billion comparing with almost USD 4 billion in 2012. Finally, the GDP in 2013 expressed in the US currency registered the result of USD 71.71 billion, while in 2012 the GDP was USD 63.62 billion. Of course, the GDP growth expressed in Belarusian rubles was much bigger again: 20.06%. The GDP in 2013, expressed in Belarusian currency, was BYR 636.784 trillion. The GDP per capita increased significantly in 2013: from USD 6721 (BYR 56,033 million) to USD 7577 (BYR 67,284 million).

The year 2014 was characterized by lower GDP rate of rise – 7.61% (USD 5.46 billion). In comparison with 2013, the Gross Domestic Product was 77.17 billion in US dollars. The GDP increase expressed in Belarusian rubles was 28.82% (from BYR 636.78 trillion to BYR 820.355 trillion).

Investments’ share from Gross Domestic Product was always impressive and continues to represent a significant percentage of GDP. 42.34% in 2010, 39.48% in 2011, 34.53% in 2012, 37.31 in 2013 and 37.74% in 2014 represent one additional clear factor of maintaining the economic growth registered during the years 2010 – 2014. Due to the fact the Republic of Belarus joined the Customs Union together with Russia and Kazakhstan, the main investors in the economy of Belarus are Russian companies such as gas industry giant “Gazprom”, companies from petroleum industry “Lukoil” & “TNK” (Oil company from Tyumen’) and leading banks in Russia: “Sberbank” and VTB Bank (Vneshtorgbank).

In 2010 it was 9.92%, but in 2011 it grew up to 108.68%. In 2012 it slowed down to 21.77%, in 2013 – to 16.46%. In 2014 the inflation registered in Belarus was of 18.4%.

The unemployment in Belarus is very low, but there is a specific argument of such a low indicator. Usually, the people registered as unemployed persons receive a very low unemployment contribution (about BYR 150000) and are obliged to do unpaid work for the use of community. This situation is not seen by population as a benefic one. That is why the unemployed persons try to avoid official registration as unemployed people. In 2010 the unemployment rate was 0.83%, in 2011 it decreased to 0.67% and 0.61% in 2012. The same rate of unemployment of 0.51% was registered in last two years: 2013 and 2014.

The trade has suffered its own changes during the years. The exports registered growth in the years 2010 – 2012 (7.67% in 2010, 30.4% in 2011, 10.78% in 2012), especially in 2011 due to the entrance of Belarus into the Customs Union which meant less trade barriers in economic relations with Russian Federation and Kazakhstan. The year 2013 was remarked by a cruel decrease of exports (-17.04%) because of misunderstandings between Russia and Belarus regarding trade and quality of some Belarusian products as meat and milk products which resulted in some interdictions in export of Belarusian products to Russian Federation. In 2014 the increase of exports was just 1.04%. In imports, the year 2010 was last year when the rise rate of imports was bigger than the rate of exports’ growth, the imports increased by 12.22%. In the years 2011 and 2012 the rates of imports’ rise were significantly lower than the exports’ increase rates: 18.5% in 2011 and 3.15%. The difficulties in economic relations between Russia and Belarus in 2013 resulted in a decrease in imports also: -6.08%. The percentage of imports’ growth was same modest as the exports’ increase rate: just 1.41%.

Armenia: The participation of Armenia in the Eastern Partnership program began in 2009, the year of severe decrease of Gross Domestic Product by more than a quarter: 25.82%, if expressed in US dollars (from USD 11.66 billion in 2008 to USD 8.65 billion in 2009). Such “performance” was mentioned by “Forbes” in one of its articles named “The World's Worst Economies After 2009”, positioning Armenia on 2nd place and giving the following appreciation to the economic situation in Armenia: “With a 15% shrank in GDP in 2009 (expressed in Armenian drams) and moderate rise forecast for the next few years, this landlocked former republic of Soviet Union is striving to hold on with the rest of the world. Per-capita GDP of $3,000 is less than a third of neighboring Turkey, and with inflation running at 7%, Armenia’s citizens are getting poorer. GDP per capita: $2,959 Inflation: 7%. On top of that, Russia reduced the supplies of diamonds, hurting Armenia’s once-thriving the industry of diamond-processing.” The main causes of such a sharp decrease of GDP were decreases of two sectors which compose a quite significant part of Gross Domestic Product: sector of constructions and cash remittances from abroad (especially from workers employed in Russia, most of the Armenian emigrants, whose incomes were negatively influenced by the financial crisis 2008-09 in Russia). By the way, the migration from Armenia was caused by a high rate of unemployment: 18.7%. Trade registered also a sensible decrease. Exports fell down by 10.39%, imports – by 12.54%. The share of investments from GDP was quite significant: 33.82%.

The economic recovery began immediately in the following year 2010. The Gross Domestic Product expressed in USD raised by 7.05% (from USD 8.65 billion to USD 9.26 billion). The GDP per capita registered in 2010 was 2838 US dollars. The investments’ share of GDP fell down to 29.42%. The inflation rate in 2010 was 8.48%, the unemployment rate was still high – 19%. The imports increased by 2.37%. The exports were the main engine of economic recovery in 2010: they grew by 32.24%, mostly due to exports of the main products of Armenia such as diamonds, machinery, equipment and raw copper.

The rhythm of economic recovery continued in 2011. For the first time, the Armenian GDP exceeded the rank of 10 billion United States’ dollars. The indicator of 2011 in GDP was USD 10.14 billion, bigger with 9.5% than in the year before. The GDP per capita was USD 3097. Investments’ share of GDP registered the quota of 27%. The rate of unemployment remained the same as in the year before – 19%, the inflation decreased to the rate 4.65%. 8.8% represented the rate of raise of the exports, while imports decreased by 4.87%.

In 2012 the GDP expressed in US dollars experienced a small decrease even if in Armenian drams it grew up. The cause was the devaluation of Armenian currency. USD 9.96 billion was the GDP in 2012, smaller with 1.78% in comparison with 2011, when the same indicator registered the result USD 10.14 billion. The same indicator, but per capita, was in 2012 USD 3035. The quota of investments of GDP fell again, that time to 23.44%. The same tendency experienced the inflation rate in 2012, falling to 3.22%. The unemployment rate was the same for the 3rd year consecutively – 19%. The exports increased by 5.70% in 2012, the imports – by 5.17%.

There was again economic recovery in following 2013. For the second time in Armenian economy and first time after 2011, the Armenian GDP overcame the rank of 10 billion United States’ dollars. The indicator of 2013 of Gross Domestic Product was USD 10.43 billion, bigger with 4.71% than in the year before. The GDP per capita was USD 3173. Investments’ share of GDP decreased to 21.76%. The rate of unemployment decreased, but not significantly, just by 0.5% and registered the quota 18.5%, while the inflation grew up to the rate 5.55%. 8.01% represented the rate of raise of the exports, while imports increased by 3.76%.

The economic growth continued in the following year 2014. The Gross Domestic Product expressed in the American currency experience a spore by 6.52% (from USD 10.43 billion to USD 11.11 billion). The GDP per capita increased in 2014 to 3373 US dollars. The investments’ quota of GDP increased modestly to 22.36%. The inflation rate in 2014 was 2.36%, the unemployment rate was again high – 18%. The imports increased by 3.61%. The exports’ raise was again bigger than the imports’ one, showing a result of 6.17% increase.

Azerbaijan: This country, located in South Caucasus is widely known as an “economic wonder” due to some consecutive years of impressive economic growth. The main products which bring most of the money into the Azerbaijani budget are oil and oil products.

In 2010 the registered GDP was in amount of USD 52.9 billion, showing an increase of 19.44%. The GDP per capita was also not bad: USD 5880.81. The following year 2011 was another year of surprising economic growth. The GDP expressed in US dollars increased by 24.66% (from USD 52.9 billion to USD 65.95 billion). The GDP per capita could not be bad in such a successful economic year: USD 7114.24.

The year 2012 was characterized by a modest economic increase. The GDP growth rate expressed in percent was lower: just 4.21%, from USD 65.95 billion in 2011 to USD 68.73 billion in 2012. The GDP per capita registered an increase also in 2012: from 7114.24 US dollars in 2011 to USD 7439 in 2012.

In the succeeding 2013 year, the rhythm of the rise of Azerbaijani economy continued. The rate of GDP growth was higher than in 2012: 7% in 2013 comparing with 4.21% in 2012. Finally, the GDP in 2013 expressed in the US currency registered the result of USD 73.56 billion, while in 2012 the GDP was USD 68.73 billion. The GDP per capita increased significantly in 2013: from USD 7438 (AZM 5843.82) to USD 7899 (AZM 6199.21).

The year 2014 was characterized by lower GDP rate of rise – 5.91% (USD 4.35 billion). In comparison with 2013, the Gross Domestic Product was 77.91 billion in US dollars.

Investments’ share from Gross Domestic Product was quite significant and continues to have a good share of GDP. In 2010 this share was 18.53%, in 2011 – 21.19%, in 2012 – 22.73%, in 2013 – 23.09% and 23.53% in 2014.

Initially, the inflation was not small. In 2010 it was 7.88%, but in 2011 it fell down 5.55%. In 2012 the inflation turned into deflation. The rate of deflation was 0.33%. In 2013 the inflation came back to positive indicators: that time to 3.62%. In 2014 the inflation registered in Azerbaijan was just 2%.

The unemployment rate in Azerbaijan is not high. In 2010 the unemployment rate was 5.6%, in 2011 it decreased to 5.42% and 5.18% in 2012. The rate of unemployment of 4.97% was registered in 2013. In 2014 this rate increased a bit, showing a quota of 6.04%.

The trade of Azerbaijan has its own specifics. The exports have been in decrease since the year 2010 (-1.79% in 2010, -3.22% in 2011, -1.49% in 2012, -1.5% in 2013 and -2.94% in 2014). Such results are too much lower in comparison with exports’ raises registered in the second half of the previous decade (41.10% in 2005, 39.42% in 2006, 45.78% in 2007, 5.62% in 2008 and 9.5% in 2009). The year 2009 was the last years when the exports’ growth rate showed a positive result. Oil, gas, foodstuff, machinery & equipment and cotton are the most exported products.

In imports, the situation was sporadic during the last 5 years. In 2010 these imports fell down by 0.82%. In the year 2011 the situation is vice-versa: the growth rate of imports was 37.90%. In 2012 the same rate was by almost 3 times lower than in the year before: 13.25%. In 2013 the imports grew again, this time by 10.34%. The year 2014 resulted in a total decrease of trade because imports decreased too besides the exports: the rate of decrease was 2.94%.

Georgia: The rate of GDP growth in 2010 was 8.7%, resulting finally in a Gross Domestic Product of USD 11.64 billion. The GDP per capita in 2010 resulted in USD 2623.36. The inflation rate fell down to 11.24% and the share of investments was 21.88% of the Gross Domestic Product. The unemployment rate was too high: 16.29%. The temp exports increased by 7.39%, while the imports showed a low decrease in 2010: -0.07%.

Impressive performances registered the Georgian economy in 2011. The Gross Domestic Product grew by 24.05% resulting finally in USD 14.44 billion. The GDP per capita increased also to USD 3229.81 (GEL 5447.06). The share of investments from GDP increased to 26.31% of Gross Domestic Product. The rapid rhythm of fall of inflation was in 2011. It fell by 5.5 times and stopped at the ratio 2.04%. Still, the unemployment rate was again high – 15.06%. The trade results were bigger: exports increased by 12.11%, imports – by 10.14%.

The economic growth continued in Georgia in 2012 too. The rate of GDP growth was 9.76% in 2012. The final GDP in 2012 expressed in US dollars was USD 15.85 billion. Per capita, the GDP in 2012 was USD 3523.41 (GEL 5818.06). In 2012 the share of investments raised again, that time to 29.81%. The unemployment rate remained almost the same as in the year before – 15.03%. The rapid temp of inflation caused the deflation of 1.37% in 2012. The trade registered serious increases. The exports’ growth was just 15.49%, imports – 18.89%.

In 2013 the macroeconomic evolution of Georgia was diverse in different parts. The rate of GDP rise was just 1.76%, registering the final Gross Domestic Product of USD 16.13 billion. The GDP per capita also increased in 2013, to US dollars 3596.74 (5982.63 Georgian lari). The investments registered a decrease, resulting in 25.27% share of GDP. The unemployment rate decreased slowly, just to 14.56%. The deflation turned back into inflation, showing an inflation rate of 2.37%. The trade registered serious progress, especially in exports where the increase was 25%. The imports increased just by 3.5%.

The economic growth in 2014 in Georgia can be characterized as a modest one. Even if the GDP expressed in Georgian lari increased by almost 2.37 billion units from 26.82 billion to GEL 29.19 billion, the indicator expressed in United States’ dollar showed a modest increase by 2.35%, from USD 16.14 billion in 2013 to USD 16.53 billion in 2014. Such phenomenon was caused by the significant depreciation of the Georgian currency reporting to main currencies. The share of investments from GDP was 25.94%, registering a small increase taking into account the initialing of the Association Agreement between Georgia and European Union. The inflation rate increased again, up to 5% in 2014. The tendencies in trade were opposite to those from the year before: exports increased just by 8.62%, imports – by 11.07%.

Moldova: Unfortunately, the year 2009 was unfavorable for the Moldovan economy. As a small economy, it did not suffer immediately because of the world financial crisis which had begun earlier in the years 2007 – 2008. Still, the effect of this crisis was felt a bit later because of economic problems which had to face the most important trade partners of Moldova: European Union and Russian Federation. All countries – members of the EU (except Poland) and Russia registered in 2009 decreases in their Gross Domestic Products. The imports by the mentioned countries decreased also and the imports from Moldova were not exceptions. That is why the Moldovan exports in all directions suffered a serious slowdown. In the annual report for 2010 made by the National Bank of Moldova, its governor Dorin Dragutanu affirmed: “The world economic crisis heated cruelly the economy of the Republic of Moldova in 2009 and showed its vulnerability to foreign economic shocks. The decrease in foreign demand and slowdown of remittances from abroad by 30% caused significant pressure on exchange rate of the national currency and slowdowns in internal demand and consumption. The decrease of revenues from customs taxes and VAT was the main cause of reduction of incomes to budget. These phenomena brought to a big budgetary deficit of 6.9% of Gross Domestic Product. The same GDP decreased by 6.0%. The annual rate of inflation of 0.4% registered in 2009 was determined mainly by drastic reduction of economic activity and population’s purchasing power.”

Presenting the data of the year 2010, the National Bank governor stated: “In 2010 we were standers-by of a spectacular recovery which exceeded our expectations. In real terms, the GDP grew by 6.9% reaching almost his development potential. The decreases registered a year before were recovered in all sectors except industrial production, constructions and transports. The exports increased by 12.8%, while the imports raised by 1.37%. The internal consumption grew by 9% and the budgetary deficit shrank to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product. The inflation was 8.1%, more than the medium-term target of 5%, but lower than the average of 12% registered in the years before crisis.”

In 2011 the Gross Domestic Product increased by 6.4% comparing with the year before and registered the amount of MDL 82.35 billion (USD 7.02 billion). The model of economic growth of the Republic of Moldova suffered essential changes. The main factors which brought to the GDP growth in 2011 were the presence of increased foreign demand on Moldovan products & goods (the main trade partners recovered partially after the financial crisis of the years 2007-08) and the raise of people’s available income. The positive trends in all sectors of the economy influenced too the economic growth. According to data of National Bureau of Statistic, in 2011 the rhythm of growth of exports surpassed constantly the imports’ growth rate (except the last 4 months of the year). The final result showed an increase of exports by 18%. The considerable increase of exports to Russian Federation, Romania and Italy conducted mainly to such an overall progress. Still, per groups, the EU countries were the main destinations where most of the exports were directed, having a share of 49.0% of all Moldovan exports, overcoming the share of exports to CIS countries (41.4%). The essential contribution to exports of goods in 2011 had the exports of goods such as: manufacturing goods, gross materials (except fuels), machinery and equipment necessary for transports and alimentary products. At the same time, the imports increased by 14% due to rise of imports from Russian Federation and Romania. The main imported products were: mineral fuels, machinery and transportation equipment, manufactured products classified by raw materials and chemical products.

In 2011 the inflation had an ascendant tendency in the first half of the year and stable evolution in the last months resulting finally in a rate of 7.8%.

The year 2012 was unfavorable for Moldovan economy. The dynamic of GDP growth turned into a decreasing tendency as a result of severe drought of summer of 2012 which affected the agricultural sector. In consequence, the production was lower, the exports decreased too (agricultural products still hold a significant share of Moldovan exported products). The foreign medium was less favorable than the year before because of economic contraction within the Eurozone. That is why the demand for Moldovan products in the countries of Eurozone was smaller in 2012. Finally, both above mentioned factors brought to a contraction of economic activity and a decrease of GDP by 0.8%. The exports decreased by 2.48%: the share of exports to EU countries decreased by 2.3% from 48.8% to 46.5%, while the share exports to CIS countries from overall increased by 1.47%: from 41.46% in 2011 to 42.93% in 2012. The imports increased just by 0.41% due to decrease of imports from CIS countries (from 33% of total imports in 2011 to 31.14% in 2012) and a small increase of imports from the countries if European Union (from 43.46% of total imports in 2011 to 44.47% of all imports).

In the following year 2013 the Moldovan economy recovered showily, stated the National Bank in its report. Due to the data of National Statistics Bureau, in 2013, the GDP registered a growth of 8.9% in comparison with the year 2012, overcoming for the first time the rank of MDL 100 billion, registering the result of MDL 100.51 billion (USD 7.96 billion). It was the biggest economic growth registered in the history of independent Moldova. The evolution of the economy during the year 2013 was driven also by the depreciation of Moldovan currency reporting to currencies of main trade partners. The depreciation of Moldova leu in annual terms coincided with the record amount of remittances from abroad determined the growth of incomes of population. Still, the most determinant factor of increasing of economic activity was the recovery of internal demand as a consequence of rise of incomes of population and, also, recovery of agricultural sector after the drought of the year before, 2012.

After poor results registered in 2012, the exports and imports got back to positive tendency registering significant values, but not higher than those of the years 2010 and 2011. Mainly the recovery of the agricultural sector influenced the evolution of exports, while the internal demand was the main reason of increase of the imports. The annual rhythm of rise of exports (expressed in US dollars) in 2013 was 11%. In the first quarter the “engine” of the increase of exports was those designated to CIS and other countries (then falling during the rest 9 months), while in the second half of 2013 the exports designated to EU countries were such an "engine". In the year 2013 the imports increased by 5.4%. The biggest influence on this result had the imports from EU countries and other ones, while the imports from CIS had a sporadic character because of the trade relations between the Republic of Moldova and Russian Federation which were a bit deteriorated because of embargo on Moldovan wines imposed by Russian authorities. The inflation registered in 2013 was at the rate of 5.2%.

The economic growth in 2014 in Moldova can be characterized as a modest one comparing with past growths of GDP. Even if the GDP expressed in Moldovan lei increased by almost 10 billion units from 111.51 billion to MDL 111.5 billion, the indicator expressed in United States’ dollar showed a modest increase by 4.6%. Such phenomenon was caused by the continuous depreciation the Moldovan currency as a part of monetary policy adopted by the National Bank of Moldova. The share of investments of GDP was 22.68%. The inflation rate was again 5% in 2014 as in the year before. The tendencies in trade were less optimistic comparing with 2013: exports decreased by 3.7%, imports – by 3.2%. The main cause of falling of exports was the extended sanctions on Moldovan agricultural products imposed by the Russian Federation.

2.3. Achievements and challenges of the Republic of Moldova within the Eastern Partnership program

The participation of the Republic of Moldova within the Eastern Partnership program which began in 2009 was remarked by major political and economic events within and outside Moldova which made a serious impact in the political and economic evolution of Moldova in that year. The parliamentary elections on 5th of April 2009, protests riots on 7th of April 2009, failed elections of new President in May-June 2009, anticipated parliamentary elections on 29th of July 2009 and victory of pro-European forces increased the attention of European community on Moldova and the newly formed at those times government inspired believes both among population and European authorities the Republic of Moldova would take necessary decisions and do needed reforms in order to be closer to the European community, especially population believed Moldova had definitely determined its vector of foreign policy.

In the same year of 2010, on 1st of January, Moldova became a full-rights member of the European Energy Community (an international organization established between the EU and a number of third countries aiming to expand the internal market on energy of the European Union to Southeastern Europe and beyond). Also in January 2010 was launched the Group for European Action of the Republic of Moldova (a common initiative of Romania and France) aiming promotion of interests and visibility of Republic of Moldova in the European agenda.

In the same month of the same year, the authorities of Moldova and European Union started negotiations of an Association Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area aiming to replace the PCA (Partnership Co-operation Agreement), signed on 28th of November 1994 and entered into force in 1998 on 1st of July. That agreement served as the first basis of collaboration with the European Union in the areas of politics, trade, economy, justice, culture and science. Still, that document was available just 10 years. On 15th of June 2010 there was launched the dialog Republic of Moldova – European Union regarding visa-free regime for Moldova. On 24th of January 2011 Moldova received an "action plan" from the European Union Internal Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem. That document was to lead toward visa-free travel for Moldovans within the European Union and represented a list of measures Moldovans needed to take before they can travel to the EU without a visa. Two requirements for Chisinau were for it to strengthen border controls and to issue passports that were more difficult to forge. In the same year, on 1st of May there was defined the protocol regarding common principles of participation of Republic of Moldova at the programs of European Union. On 26th of July 2012, Moldova joined the Common Air Space with European Union, which aims to liberalize the market of air services delivered in the Republic of Moldova.

In the same year, on 28th of November, at the 3rd summit of Eastern Partnership program at Vilnius, The Republic of Moldova, together with Georgia, initialed the Association Agreements with European Union and there was created the Zone of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. At the same time Ukrainian president at that time, Viktor Yanukovich, hesitated to sign the Ukraine – EU Association Agreement. This fact conducted to civil riots in Kiev & whole Ukraine.

Unfortunately, mostly because of Russian intervention in Ukraine, the situation generated from a problem of a country to a potential danger in the whole region of Eastern Europe. Still, in 2014, even in region the crisis was developing, the European Parliament voted for liberalization of visa regime for Moldova on 27th of February 2014, giving the right to Moldovan citizens to travel and stay in the Schengen area up to 90 days within 6 months (EU countries + Island, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland – countries member or European Economic Area & Schengen area, but not EU members). The decision entered in force on 28th of April 2014. On 27th of June the same year, Moldova signed the Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. Just some days later, on 2nd of July, Moldovan Parliament ratified the Association Agreement. On 1st of September, the statements of the EU – Republic of Moldova Association Agreement enter in force.

On 29th of September 2014, Moldova became the first Eastern Partnership participant country which signs with EU the agreement which allows Moldova to take part at the program COSME (Competitiveness of Small and Medium Enterprises), a project with a budget of EUR 2.5 billion which aims to give to SME’s access to financing and trade markets and contributes to competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. On October 7th, the Government adopt the national actions plan of implementation of the EU – Republic of Moldova Association Agreement during the years 2014 – 2016, establishing the dates of 15th of July and 15th of December of each year as the dates of reporting of results achieved. On 6th of November 2014 the Memorandum regarding the support offered during the years 2014 – 2017 was signed. On the same day was signed also the Agreement regarding the financing of the Support program for creation the Free Trade Area between EU and Republic of Moldova. One week later, on November 13th, the European Parliament ratified the EU – Republic of Moldova Association Agreement. After that, all EU countries’ parliaments had to ratify that document in order to make in enter in force.

These successes made Moldova as the leader among the other Eastern Partnership participants in progress of European integration. As a result of all these achievements, the pro-European forces could get victory at parliamentary elections which took place on 30th of November 2014.

The road of EU integration includes also challenges and tasks which Moldova has not yet succeeded in accomplishing them. Some of these tasks and challenges are: fighting corruption, no political interference of state institution, independent and impartial justice, territorial-administrative reform and implementing new standards in massive agriculture in order to meet EU technical and quality requirements.

Chapter III: THE PERSPECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT WITH EUROPEAN UNION AND DEEP & COMPREHENSIVE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

3.1. Eastern Partnership – way for the Republic of Moldova to join the European community

At the moment of creation, the Eastern Partnership program was interpreted differently in Europe. The Russian authorities interpreted it as an attempt to invade in the zone of the Russian influence in the former Soviet Union. Some EU countries had reserves regarding this project supposing it is a straight way for 6 Eastern European countries to EU. Still, all documents which belong to the concept of European Neighborhood Policy, European Neighborhood Policy Instrument, later renewed in European Neighborhood Instrument state that Eastern Partnership is just an instrument of the EU policy.

Within Eastern Partnership, the Republic of Moldova acts on two sides: bilateral and multilateral. The multilateral side refers mostly to the cooperation between the European Union and the EaP countries as a group, while bilateral side refers to direct relationship between EU and each EaP country in part. The second side is better known due to the Association Agreement EU – Republic of Moldova. After its signing, the approach in the relations between European Union and the Republic of Moldova will be more direct. Moldova will be oftener seen as an associate partner with its own obligations to complete in order to pass a successful integration process than as a simple EaP participant country. As a clear example, Moldova became the first and still the single country from Eastern Partnership program to receive visa-free regime with EU and Schengen area, while the other countries which signed their Association Agreements (Georgia and Ukraine) just began the second phase of implementation of dialogue of implementation of Dialogue regarding the liberalizing the visa regime. Even if the conditions which Moldova has to complete according to the Association Agreement, the financing accorded to Moldova also differ from that to other EaP participants. Still, the implementation of the Association Agreement will be a provisionally one due to the partially ratification status of the document (maximum 80%), while in order to enter in force and be implemented fully, the Association Agreement must be ratified by all EU countries’ parliaments. By April 2015, just 11 legislatives bodies of the European Union countries have ratified it. That is why the management structures stated in the Agreement have not been created yet: Association Council and Association Committee, even if these structures have been designed to have the ability of monitoring the realization process of National Implementation Plan of Association Agreement adopted by the Government decision nr. 808. The bilateral side of the Moldova – EU relations is considered by the authorities from Chisinau as a more advantageous way of communication with EU authorities in order to promote the own interests. The disadvantage of the multilateral side concerns in the need of harmonizing the actions within the Eastern Partnership program together with other participating countries which has a different rhythm in their bilateral relations with the European Union. That is why the authorities from Chisinau are disposed to propose to EU a separation of the multilateral format in order to create apart network for the states which have already signed the Association Agreement. Such an “egoistic” attitude of participating countries is motivated by a big difference in European integration progress among the countries placed in this regional project. For example, Belarus and Armenia are now closer to the newly Eurasian Economic Community, Azerbaijan has its own problems regarding respecting of human rights and freedom of opinion expression, Georgia and Ukraine still work for visa regime liberalization, while Moldova has now to work on obtaining the status of country – candidate to admission to EU. As a proof of such situation serves the agenda of the Eastern Partnership summit planned to be held in May 2015 in Riga and different expectations of the countries from this summit. For example, Georgia and Ukraine wish to obtain visa liberalized regime after this event, while Moldova with already obtained visa-free regime expects EU authorities to precise the position regarding chances of Eastern Partnership countries to launch the negotiations about obtaining of status of country candidate to join the European Union.

In 2014, the former Moldovan Prime-Minister Iurie Leanca and the Foreign Affairs minister Natalia Gherman affirmed before the parliamentary elections that Moldova would submit the request to join the European Union in 2015. Still, it is not clear how the Government plans to do it while many officials have reserves regarding an eventual success of the request submit and there are necessary some consultations with European Commission. At the Riga summit the European Union will approach the countries not individually, but as a single group and this fact makes a bit difficult the possibility to discuss an eventual submit of the request of EU joining while the other countries are too far from such aims and they are behind Moldova in the integration process or some participants as Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus do not intend to submit such a request. That is why Moldova wants to receive more clarity in the chances of association and political integration into EU, which could serves as a positive sign to presenting the official request for joining EU, even if there is a resolution of the European Parliament, adopted on 17th of April 2014, which states exactly the road to EU integration did not finish after signing the Association Agreement and Moldova could submit the official request to join the European Union in case there would be respected all principles of democracy, human rights and freedoms and law. Still, the value of the resolution is more symbolic, not juridical one and it does not serve as a legal permit to submit the request whenever Chisinau wants. That means Moldova should find the right moment to do it.

Unfortunately, the current circumstances are not the most suitable for doing such a decisive step. The newly formed “minor” coalition of liberal-democrats and democrats supported by Communists’ Party (a variant which was different to what the leaders of leading European parties suggested to Moldovan political leaders), the scandal which implied the banks: Banca de Economii, Unibank and Social Bank, the “tale” of stolen EUR 1 billion, a high grade of dissatisfaction of population regarding current political situation and unstable regional circumstances because of Eastern Ukraine conflict. Despite of all above mentioned factors and, somewhere, hesitation of some politicians, Chisinau does not give up the idea to submit the official request as soon as possible or this is a key element in the strategy of Moldovan authorities even if the republican officials understand the submit will not mean automatically the immediate beginning of the negotiations regarding the join to EU. At the same time, Brussels cannot risk to refuse entirely this request. Clearly said, Chisinau wants in that way to clarify the eligibility criteria in order to launch EU entry negotiations. It is seen by Moldovan authorities as a step to move from the status of associate country to candidate status.

Another important subject related to Eastern Partnership is the access of the Republic of Moldova to Zone of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade with EU. In order to implement successfully its stipulations, help public institutions, citizens and businesses to profit fully from benefits and opportunities offered by Association Agreement and DCFTA, European Commission announced in 2014 a package of annual support. The former European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Stefan Fule affirmed the Association Agreement was an important reference point in the Eastern Partnership policy and it would open new possibilities for a deeper policy and closer economic relations. The new wave of financing allocated by EU to Moldova was designated to support: the modernization of key public institutions which had to apply the Association Agreement stipulations and those of DCFTA; improving the public finances and management policy; increasing the competitiveness of businesses and trade competitiveness in rural area, protection of minorities and vulnerable groups.

The program aims to contribute to political association and economic integration into EU within the initiative of Eastern Partnership. It was the first package of bilateral assistance accorded to Republic of Moldova in accordance with Single Framework of Assistance which establishes objectives and strategic priorities for future EU – Republic of Moldova collaboration during the years 2014 – 2017.

The Single Framework of Assistance for the years 2014 – 2017 was adopted on 11th of June 2014. It is a program document which consigns the EU support for Moldova during the years 2014 – 2017. This document was debated with national authorities, civil society, EU institutions and EU members.

The EU annual support package (Annual Action program 2014) offered EUR 101 million as a direct allocation for the Republic of Moldova. Finances were offered via European Neighborhood Instrument for 2 actions:

1) support for the reform of public finances in Moldova (EUR 37 million) in order to assist Finance Ministry, Parliament and Supreme Audit Institution of Moldova (Court of Accounts) in consolidation of better governance, efficiency of fiscal policy, transparent and responsible policy of public finances and improving the system of public finances management;

2) European neighborhood program for agriculture and rural development (ENPARD) for the Republic of Moldova – Support for agriculture and rural development (EUR 64 million) designated for improvement or rural development by amelioration of political dialogue, governance and services of support delivery according to farmers’ needs in order to improve the competitiveness in agriculture. Another part of support is designated for better dialogue between central authorities and regional ones (e.g.: Gagauz autonomy).

On 2nd of May 2014, European Commission approved a program of support for Republic of Moldova (EUR 30 million). The support was designated to improve the competitiveness of small businesses, perfecting national legislation according to EU quality standards and promoting exports and investing opportunities, communication and informing campaigns about Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. This additional support was accorded via new mechanism of European neighborhood instrument – “more for more”.

The benefic effect of this achievement was affected by trade restrictions imposed by Russian Federation eliminating the “zero tax” on Moldovan products exported to Russia. There is no actual statistics regarding the effect of joining the DCFTA, even if there is seen a positive tendency in exports to European Union. Unfortunately the amount of loss after the Russian embargoes are bigger than the increases of exports to EU and their benefic effects is mostly unfelt. Joining Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area is considered as a big achievement of Moldovan diplomacy. Being as an enlargement of the system of Autonomous Trade Preferences, DCFTA aims to facilitate the trade by such instruments as the abolishing of customs taxes (aimed to happen at the beginning of 2015). Unfortunately, the main principle of DCFTA joining was the impossibility to participate in other free trade zones which do not contravene the statements of Association Agreement. The same logic of exclude is applied by Russia in trade relations with Moldova using the trade restrictions.

Another problem which has appeared after the Association Agreement signing is the functionality of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area in Transistrian region. As a juridical base of application can serves the article 462 of Association Agreement which stipulates the implementation of Agreement in territories where the Moldovan control cannot exercise the full control. In reality, the implementation of Association Agreement will begin initially just on the territory from the right bank of Dniester because its enter in force implies withdrawing of Autonomous Trade Preferences while in Transnistria these preferences will be active till 31st of December 2015. That means the official Chisinau has got more time on negotiations with the separatist authorities from Tiraspol regarding the application of DCFTA in the Eastern region of Moldova. The Agreement does not states exactly the procedure of its full application but it does not exclude the possibility of implementation of both Free trade zone and DC+FTA (Deep and Comprehensive + Free Trade Area). Such expression is used in case of Transistria because there are many differences between legislation applied at both sides of Dniester. Abolishing of customs taxes, modification of fiscal system (introducing VAT in Transnistria) and admission of Moldovan bodies specialized for controlling the origin and quality of goods produced in Transnistria are not enough measures for full implementation of DCFTA in Eastern region of the Republic of Moldova because the earlier mentioned techniques are the just basic instruments of a simple free trade zone. DCFTA supposes the change of entire juridical system in the field of sanitary norms, intellectual property, maintaining healthy competition etc. The last one could be the biggest problem in implementing Agreement in Transnistria because the separatist authorities do not see necessity in harmonizing the local legislation to the Moldovan one (almost similar to European legislation). Recent negotiations between officials from Chisinau, Tiraspol and Brussels have shown possibility to make derogation in case of Transistria during the “full implementation”. This derogation presents the step-by-step implementation of the Association Agreement and DCFTA stipulations. The first step supposes implementing measures of a simple free trade zone in Transnistrian region (abolishing of customs taxes, modification of fiscal system by introducing VAT in Transnistria and admission of Moldovan specialized bodies to control the origin and quality of goods produced in the territory from the left bank of Dniester). Still, this method of implementation requires launch of more complex negotiations between the Republic of Moldova, Transnistrian region and European Union. Initially, the officials from Chisinau affirmed they are not against step-by-step implementation of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area in Transnistria, even if it means less political pressure Chisinau can execute on separatist authorities in order to get harmonized legal framework between both banks of Dniester. Also, the official Chisinau does not hurry the launch of negotiations thinking the Transnistrian authorities should make the first steps in this process and it is in their interest to make the right decisions in order to make possible the full DCFTA implementation in Transnistria once the region faces cruel economic problems caused by Ukraine crisis, lack of financial help from Russian Federation and dominant trade flows with Moldova and European Union (almost 70% of all trade of the separatist region). The officials from Tiraspol pay more attention on the political side of the DCFTA implementation and like to remind their will to separate from Moldova and have separate negotiations directly with EU. The ideal variant, regarding to strategies elaborated in Tiraspol, is signing of a separate bilateral Trade Agreement with EU without Moldovan participation at negotiations. Fortunately, this “ideal variant” has no chances to become reality due to positions of Brussels and Chisinau which accept just trilateral negotiations. Still, Brussels considers the negotiations must be in a bilateral format which implies Chisinau and Tiraspol, but the big differences between opinions of authorities from both banks of Dniester can make the negotiations too long and without chances to end. That is why the participation of European authorities at the negotiations in the format “2+1 talks” is needful.

Resuming the all above mentioned information, the Eastern Partnership can be mentioned as a part of the way to European integration of the Republic of Moldova, but not the whole one. Till joining the European Union, the Republic of Moldova has to pass another part of the way which will surely harder and will require more political will from the leading political class of Moldova and greater efforts to solve the biggest problems of Moldova as: corruption, not transparent justice system, financial system transparency and Transistrian problem.

3.2. Situation in the region of Eastern Europe: challenges and opportunities

In 2009, the project of Eastern Partnership program was seen as a very ambitious, but with many reserves. The lack of geopolitical approach to this project was one of the main arguments of EaP skeptics or such an approach was vital taking into consideration initially 4 of 6 countries were implicated in “frozen” conflicts: Moldova in Transistrian problem, Georgia with its separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after 2008 Russo-Georgian war and Armenia together with Azerbaijan in case of disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Moreover, Russia has expressed many times the Eastern Partnership program contravenes to interests of official Moscow. During following years Russian authorities applied different pressing measures on Eastern Partnership countries in order to prevent the extension of “European influence” in the former Soviet countries.

In the years 1988 – 1993 Georgia had to face a civil war against separatists from two regions: South Ossetia (1988 – 1992) and Abkhazia (1992 – 1993). These regions could be returned under the Georgian control, but the first Georgian president Zviad Gamsakhurdia was withdrawn from the presidency after a violent coup d’etat and his successor, unpopular among Georgians former Soviet Union foreign affairs minister, Eduard Shevardnadze appealed to support from neighboring to Georgia countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russian Federation. Russia agreed to provide Georgian government with military help in order to defeat the pro-Gamsakhurdia forces and “establish” governmental control over main transport lines. After the conflict, Russian troops remained in Georgia with accordance of Shevardnadze as the Georgian president. Georgia joined the Commonwealth of Independent States. That is why the Russian influence was felt after such decisions. Just in 2004, after Rose revolution, departure of Shevardnadze from the function of Georgian president and appearance of new leading persons in Georgia, the Russian troops and bases began to be evacuated from Georgia. The new leaders, at those times, were Nino Burjanadze and Mihkeil Saakashvili. In 2008, the president Saakashvili decided to re-establish the constitutional control in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Being provided by the United States, the Georgian army attempted to reestablish the control in South Ossetia. As a response, Russian forces intervened in Georgia and thwarted the Georgian army’s operation. Moreover, in some days, Russian army went forward and there were reports Russian soldiers and military technique was seen not far from Tbilisi. In the mid-August, the former president of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev signed a document which stipulated the Russian Federation recognized officially the independence of Georgian separatist regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Generally said, this conflict was a clear proof the countries from immediate EU neighborhood were vulnerable to Russian pressures and that served as a stimulus for EU to elaborate the project of Eastern Partnership. Nowadays the Russo-Georgian relations continue to be tensioned.

The case of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is more complicated because it represents a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In 1994, after long negotiations which implied such political actors as: Russian Federation, Turkey, Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan, there was signed a ceasefire which meant de facto the “freezing” of conflict and an Armenian control over the region Nagorno-Karabakh which territorially belongs to Azerbaijan. Of course, the conflict from Eastern Ukraine attracts more attention of public opinion and there is paid less attention on the problem of separatist Azerbaijani region. Still, the energetic and economic bet of this conflict is not small.

In 1994 in Azerbaijan was signed a contract which played a crucial role in the economic development of this Caucasian country. On 20th of September 1994, after 3.5 years of negotiations, the Azeri authorities, represented by the former president Heydar Aliyev, signed a contract with a consortium of oil companies which engaged in exploring the energy resources from Caspian Sea. The contract received the name “Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli”. The agreement stated annual investments of USD 7.4 billion during the following 30 years. The reserves of petroleum were estimated at 4 billion barrels. The following development of petroleum industry influenced crucially the economic destiny of Azerbaijan and played key role in the economic “miracle” of the country in the years 2005 – 2008. This economic miracle helped and helps Azerbaijan to be an important political actor within the Caucasus region. While Georgia promotes pro-Western policy and signed in 2014 the Association Agreement with EU, Armenia strengthens its relations with Russian Federation.

Azerbaijan attempts to play a “pivot” role in this geopolitical situation, but the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh makes it difficult. Russia tends to be the most influent political and economic power in Caucasus and sees Azerbaijan as the concurrent to Kremlin’s influence in the region. NATO also does not neglect the role of Azerbaijan in the Caucasus region and uses its political influence via Turkey, a NATO member and the most important political and economic partner of Azerbaijan. From the economic point of view, Russia sees Azerbaijan as the main concurrent on the market of exports of petroleum and natural gas and tended to support Armenia more and more. Of course, Azerbaijan approaches Russia as an important economic partner, but the Azeri authorities received messages from Russian authorities that Kremlin would support more Armenia, a state classified by Azerbaijan as an “enemy”.

Azerbaijan plays a key role in realization of South Corridor for gas delivery in Europe in case the Azeri production of oil and gas increases annually. The oil fields Shah Deniz, discovered in 1999, represent one of the most important areas in the world designed for natural resources extraction. The Shah Deniz fields of oil and gas extraction are located at 70 km distance from Baku and the area of these fields is 860 sq. km. The project of resources’ extraction in this area is operated by “British Petroleum”, having the share of 28.8%, Turks from TPAO have 19%, state Azeri company “Socar” with its 16.7%, Norwegians from “Statoil” with 15.5% share, Russians from “Lukoil” Iranians from NIOC, each of them holding 10%. The development of the Shah Deniz project can increase the chances of South Corridor to become a serious alternative to Russian or Iranian natural resources.

Taking into account the European Union wants to diversify the energy resources in the period of instability of Eastern Ukraine and the US recommends EU to pay attention to South Corridor and in this case Azerbaijan a huge opportunity to break the monopoly of the European energy resources market established by Russian Federation via its gas giant “Gazprom”.

If Azerbaijan decides to increase its rhythm in implementing its own program within the Eastern Partnership project, it will be a strategic move which can make too hard for Russia to realize its plan of dominance in the Caucasus region. Still, diplomacy was one of the main advantages which helped Azerbaijan to maintain balance in its foreign relations. As a good example can serve the Contract of the Century which states the possibility to extract oil in Caspian Sea was received by British, Russians and Iranians. The diplomatic tool is vital for Azerbaijan having two very challenging countries as Russia and Iran and helps it to keep silence in the region and avoid disputes between Russia and Iran regarding the oil extraction in Caspian Sea, because from such disputes most of all can suffer the third part – Azerbaijan. As a result of excellent diplomacy, Azerbaijan has nowadays strong collaboration with West without harassing the neighboring Russia and Iran.

On 21st of July at Moscow, after 4 months of conflict, was signed the Treaty of was cease which aimed to establish peace in Transnistria. The document was signed by the former presidents of the Republic of Moldova, Mircea Snegur, and Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin. That treaty meant the “freezing” of Transnistrian conflict establishing the corps of pacifiers from 3 sides: Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation and Transnistrian region. These corps has been maintaining peace in the security zone since 1992. Even if the mission is pacifist one, the international observers and organization monitoring the situation in Transnistria have reserves regarding the need to maintain the current format and opt for replacing of pacifiers’ corps with an international civil mission monitored by Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe. Despite the Boris Yeltsin’s promise to evacuate the 14th Army of Russian Federation and its arsenal from Transistria expressed at the OSCE summit at Istanbul in 1999, the Russian army is still in Transnistria being well equipped. In 2003, when the leading at that time Communists’ Party supported the pro-Russian foreign policy, Kremlin proposed to Moldovan authorities the plan of solving the Transistrian problem by federalization of Moldova and giving to Transistria a status of subject of federation. That document was named “Kozak memorandum” after the former Russian president’s representative Dmitry Kozak. Such a scenario could be realized, but in the last moment the former Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin refused to sign the document. This reject was appreciated by Russian authorities as a gesture of unrespect and the bilateral Moldovan – Russian relations became deteriorated. The progress of conflict negotiation was almost stopped in 2006. In the same year, the separatist authorities from Transnistria organized a referendum where the majority of local population expressed the will of independence of Transistria with following enter in the Russian Federation. The results were not officially recognized by any country. Just in 2009 there were first negotiations after a long pause between former Moldovan prime-minister Vlad Filat and former separatist leader from Tiraspol Igor Smirnov. These negotiations continued in the following years. First signs of possible better co-operation between both banks of Dniester were at the beginning of 2012 after change of leader at Tiraspol when Igor Smirnov was replaced by newly elected Yevgeny Shevchuk. Initially, the dialogue between involved parts within the format of “5+2 talks” was very constructive. Unfortunately, the character of dialogue continued to be less constructive because of Russian influence in the region or, economically, Transistria depends on Russian financial help and there are still troops dislocated in the northern part of the separatist region, near the village of Cobasna. The separatist authorities expressed many times their skepticism regarding the European integration process in which are involved the Moldovan authorities and worries regarding possible economic “damages” to the economy of Transistrian region in case the Moldovan authorities sign the Association Agreement and begin to implement DCFTA. In 2014, when the scale of Ukrainian crisis was increasing, Crimea was annexed by Russian Federation and appeared separatist movements in Lugansk and Donetsk, the separatist authorities from Tiraspol reminded they have the military potential not only for defending, but also to attack in case of possible “danger” from Ukraine. The events which happened in Odessa in May 2014 when there were collisions between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian protesters represented the moment when, in case of getting control over situation in Odessa by pro-Russian protesters, the Moldovan security could be worried regarding imminent danger coming from Ukraine and, eventually, from Transnistria. Fortunately, the attempts of separatism have failed and in the region close to Dniester was silence. Still, the danger of military conflict is not low and the 14th Russian army continues to stay in Transnistria. That is why the potential of “thawing” of the conflict is not low, especially in the context Ukrainian crisis.

European integration can serve as a solution for Trasnistrian conflict. Taking into account that Moldova begins to beneficiate from economic advantages of DCFTA, increased quotas on European market for Moldovan products and big percentage of exported to EU products made in Transistrian region, the economic reason could become as an important argument for the region from the left bank of Dniester to think it would be better to live in a reintegrated country.

The Ukrainian crisis could be just a regional crisis, but the impact of it is global. Why? It has shown the lacks which are in the international legislation which do not prevent much more drastic sanctions or measures in case the legislation is totally not respected, the established borders are violated and the power of word is undermined by the power of gun. The wave of international support to Ukraine and blame for Russia and the attitudes and actions of Russian authorities create the impression a new Cold War is rising between Russia and West & USA. The first phase of war is the change of mutual sanctions one to each other.

CONCLUSIONS

Launched in 2009, the project of Eastern Partnership represents an attempt of European Union to give a clearer Eastern dimension to European Neighborhood Policy. During the years, this framework which gathered 6 countries from Eastern Europe and South Caucasus made the relationships between EU and participant countries closer, even if the price for such a co-operation was worse relations with Russian Federation. In conclusion the renewed after European parliamentary elections European Commission initiated the review of European Neighborhood Policy which means the Eastern Partnership concept modification is unavoidable.

As main weaknesses of EaP program can be mentioned: lack of coherent policy; tendency to bilateralism, skipping the political process and excessive bureaucratization of the process of engagements’ implementation. The crisis in Ukraine showed the lack in geopolitical approach of the process and that determined incapability of Eastern Partnership promoters to prefigure the events’ evolution in Eastern Europe. Due to ambiguity of Eastern Partnership, the participant countries have some freedom in defining their own objectives, creating in that way a high grade of flexibility which, unfortunately, leads to big differentiation between countries in their integration performances and makes difficult to establish the final point of this partnership.

Within Eastern Partnership program, the Republic of Moldova has registered notable achievements since its launch in 2009. Initialing the European Union – Republic of Moldova Association Agreement in November 2013 and its later signing on 27th of June 2014, liberalization of visa regime for Moldovan citizens were the realizations which made Moldova the leader in Eastern Partnership program. Another major success was the singing of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area document on the same day of 27th of June, which aims to serve as the basis of deeper economic collaboration with EU.

In its approach, Chisinau pays the biggest accent on bilateral co-operation and supports the principle of differentiation, treating the whole process in technical way (fulfilling just technical requirements for further advance in negotiations process), believing in bureaucratic logic of executing the assumed engagements and faster advance in negotiations. That is why, the official Chisinau has begun to think and affirm the probability to submit the official request to join the European Union in 2015, after the Eastern Partnership summit in Riga which should take place in May. Unfortunately, the chances of a successful request submission and positive answer from European authorities are not high taking into consideration the current political configuration formed after the November 2014 parliamentary elections and poor results registered in the process of justice reform and fight against corruption despite strong financing from European Union.

Analyzing wholly the participation of the Republic of Moldova in the Eastern Partnership program and realizations made during the years 2009 – 2015, it will be right to affirm the Republic of Moldova have passed successfully the entire “road” of an Eastern Partnership participant or, analyzing documents which served as basics of EaP, we can conclude the signing of bilateral Association Agreements together with DCFTA and visa liberalization between the European Union and Eastern Partnership countries represent a kind of finality of this instrument of European Neighborhood Policy and Moldova has reached this “finish line” first. The Association Agreement establishes the bilateral character of negotiations or that means the Republic of Moldova is approached more as an associate EU member than a simple Eastern Partnership Participant.

There is no certainty in current political situation because the new “minor” coalition formed by liberal-democrats and democrats and supported unconditionally by communists does not look stable. There is no guarantee there will not be disagreements between leading parties which can make difficult the processes of decision making and law adoption. Moreover, the Communists’ Party leader Vladimir Voronin expressed some times he did not like some statements from the EU – Moldova Association Agreement and opted for its partial redaction considering some statements from Association Agreement contravene to the interests of the Republic of Moldova. Another factor which causes uncertainty regarding actual governing political class is the coming presidential election in 2016. The Constitution was not changed and the article 78 continues to state there are necessary 3/5 of votes (61 votes of 101) of Parliament deputies in order to elect a new president or in case of two failures the actual president have to dissolve the Parliament and announce anticipate parliamentary elections. Such a situation can happen because the leading two parties (Liberal Democrat Party + Democrat Party) and Communists’ Party total just 59 deputies, not 61 as it was before the former prime-minister Iurie Leanca and former reintegration secretary Eugen Carpov had left the Liberal Democrat Party and became independent deputies.

That is why it is almost impossible to determine how much time the implementation of Association Agreement, DCFTA will take and when the negotiations regarding the Republic of Moldova admission to European Union will begin.

Finally, we can affirm the way to integration into European Union promises to be much harder and longer, but the Republic of Moldova can pass this way as successfully, as it did it before the signing of Association Agreement and visa regime liberalization. The background made during the years 2009 – 2015 is very good, but there will be necessary political stability, political will and bigger than ever efforts to solve the biggest problems of Moldova: fight against corruption, justice reform; ensuring stability in financial and banking sectors and continuing to harmonize the Moldovan legislation to the European one. Just in this case the myth of Moldovan “success story” will be characteristic not only of passing the Eastern Partnership “way”. The myth in the best case can become characteristic for whole process of European integration of Moldova.

Bibliography

NORMATIVE ACTS

1. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION, European Neighbourhood Policy,

STRATEGY PAPER, Brussels, 12.5.2004 COM(2004) 373 final

2. Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit, Prague, 7 May 2009;

BOOKS, BROCHURES

3 Overview of the European Neighbourhood Policy: Its History, Structure, and Implemented Policy Measures. Edzard Wesselink, Ron Boschma January 2012

ARTICLES FROM PERIODICAL EDITORIALS

WEB RESOURCES

4. http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/where-we-work/europa/south-eastern-europe-eastern-eur/moldova.html ;

5. http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2013/291113_eu-moldova_association_agreement_en.htm.

ANNEXES

7. Annex 1: Overview of the countries participating in the European Neighborhood Policy

Table 2: Overview of the countries participating in the European Neighborhood Policy

Notes: *Source: European Commission (2011u)

** Incomplete because data missing on Tunisia and Russia.

***Data missing because indicative programme of this period was not published, or

did not mention budget. Other sources could not be found

Sources: European Commission (2007a-2007q2, 2011a-2011q)

Bibliography

NORMATIVE ACTS

1. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION, European Neighbourhood Policy,

STRATEGY PAPER, Brussels, 12.5.2004 COM(2004) 373 final

2. Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit, Prague, 7 May 2009;

BOOKS, BROCHURES

3 Overview of the European Neighbourhood Policy: Its History, Structure, and Implemented Policy Measures. Edzard Wesselink, Ron Boschma January 2012

ARTICLES FROM PERIODICAL EDITORIALS

WEB RESOURCES

4. http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/where-we-work/europa/south-eastern-europe-eastern-eur/moldova.html ;

5. http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2013/291113_eu-moldova_association_agreement_en.htm.

ANNEXES

7. Annex 1: Overview of the countries participating in the European Neighborhood Policy

Table 2: Overview of the countries participating in the European Neighborhood Policy

Notes: *Source: European Commission (2011u)

** Incomplete because data missing on Tunisia and Russia.

***Data missing because indicative programme of this period was not published, or

did not mention budget. Other sources could not be found

Sources: European Commission (2007a-2007q2, 2011a-2011q)