On the 1st of December, Moldova woke up with the results of the parliamentary elections that would decide the direction that this small landlocked country would have taken. Bordering a European Union member state (Romania) and Ukraine, Moldova faces a similar challenge as their Eastern Partnership neighbours: keeping their ties with Russia, or pushing towards Europe?

Arrived in Chișinău, one could easily guess that there was something very relevant going on in the city. Giant panels with propaganda for the Moldovan parliamentary elections were spread all over the Stephen the Great’s boulevard, the main alley in the city. Some of them proudly showed the European Union (EU) flag and highlighted the European values and aspirations that Moldova aims to reach. Others, instead, voiced a strong anti-EU message – or, better said, a rather ‘pro-Russian’ message: “It’s better to be rich with Russia than to be poor in an indebted Europe!”, one could read on the panels from the Communist Party. Even Vladimir Putin’s face appeared in one of the panels: the Socialist Party showcased a picture of its leaders having a friendly talk with the Russian president.

It was clear from the start that Moldovan citizens had to make an important decision on November 30th. Since 2009, when the pro-European coalition entered in the government, the small country has been taking progressive steps to strive for a bigger commitment towards the EU and to meet the European standards. The country entered the Eastern Partnership and became what many consider its “star pupil”, as the magazine New Eastern Europe quoted. Its ties with Russia, though, are still strong and some feared that the contagion of the Ukrainian crisis could hit Moldova hard – in fact, its main exports, especially Moldovan wine, have been strongly affected by Russian bans for long.

In this context, it is relevant to highlight one of the main happenings before the Moldovan elections. Just 72 hours before the kick-off of the election day, the pro-Russian party Patria  (‘Homeland’) was banned from taking part in the elections after being accused of receiving funds from Russia. The party was expected to get around 13% of the total votes, so this wasn’t minor news – partly, because of the secrecy in which the Moldovan Justice Court had acted, as several experts acknowledged. Some feared that this would provoke a civil unrest similar to the Ukrainian EuroMaidan but from the Russian side, and  five people were even arrested the day before the elections, suspected of planning violent protests after the elections.

AEGEE-Europe observes on the spot

Twenty-two AEGEEans were deployed throughout the Moldovan capital, Chișinău, on the election day. From the early morning, when the polls were opened, until the end of the counting session, around 55 polling stations were visited. There was the general consensus among the observers that there had not been any major irregularities throughout the day, and that polling stations were generally well-equipped and organised.

However, the breakdown of the electronic voter registration system early in the morning was one of the highlights of the day. Long queues and overcrowding of the polling stations made it difficult at times to observe the procedure, and sometimes voters themselves were disoriented on which was the exact procedure in order to vote.

The long day was culminated by the counting process. One of the most striking things was the presence of several observers in the polling stations. From domestic observers, many of them representing several of the Moldovan political parties, but also civil society organisations, to international observers whom some of us could talk to.

Nonetheless, these national observers from political parties played an influential role during the counting process, sometimes obstructing it, arguing with the members of the polling station, and giving their opinion on the validity of votes (when, according to the election observers code of conduct, observers cannot have an active role, neither obstruct the overall election process) and acting rather coercively at times. As a matter of fact, many of the voters of the banned party ‘Patria’ did anyway cast their vote for them, so the number of invalid votes in several polling stations was remarkably high.

And now, which direction will Moldova take?

After the counting at the polling stations finished, some observers headed to the Moldovan Central Election Commission, where the first results were announced – and they were quite unexpected. “The Socialists have won”, one of the Moldovan journalists told us right when we got inside. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Party of Moldova, the leader of the pro-European coalition in power, paid the price of being in the government for the past five years, and lost nine seats in Parliament.

Despite that, the final results showed that the three parties that formed the Alliance for European Integration kept the majority, winning 53 seats out of 101. The opposition got a close result of 48 seats – 26 for the Socialists, and 22 for the Communists, even though they refuse to cooperate and make a strong opposition together.

While the negotiations to form a new government are ongoing, these results might give wings to those who hope for stronger ties between Moldova and the European Union. However, one cannot elude the fact that a party which claimed it would be “better being with Russia” and which proudly showcased Putin’s face in their posters has actually won the elections. Throughout the past five years, the pro-EU coalition government in Moldova has been rather fragile and feared a breakdown several times, even though the aspirations of Moldova in Europe are pretty clear.

After the elections, the question is still unanswered – which direction is Moldova taking?

Written by Anna Gumbau, AEGEE-Barcelona & Election Observation Project

Outstanding antennae organising outstanding events – just a couple of weeks ago, AEGEE-Yerevan organised the Armenia Model European Union (AMEU) for the fourth year in a row! Armenia is one of the countries from the Eastern Partnership (EaP) that aims to strengthen the cooperation with the EU within the next few years, so organising a MEU, with more than 140 members coming from several countries from Europe and beyond, and making it a ‘tradition’ for the past four years is considered a huge achievement and a “cornerstone” for the EU-Armenia relations. The AEGEEan interviewed Armenak Minasyants, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of AEGEE-Yerevan and one of the people behind the AMEU’s success.

Armenak Minasyants

The AEGEEan: Armenak, the first AMEU was launched back in 2011. Do you remember how the idea of organizing it came up?
Armenak Minasyants: Yes, of course I remember it! It was one of the craziest days in my life. Actually, back in August 2011, me and Julia Beglaryan (the Co-Founder of MEU in Armenia) were having our usual Saturday coffee meeting and after surfing on Facebook for several minutes, we noticed that there would be simulation conferences organized by the UN and OSCE offices in Armenia, which would simulate the activities of these international organizations. Being members of AEGEE, we automatically had a question: why do we still not have a Model EU Conference in Armenia? The answer was even faster: if we do not have it – LET’S ORGANIZE! Thanks to the Delegation of the European Union to Armenia our initiative got full administrative, financial and institutional support from the European Commission, thus allowing us to establish a project, which has already existed for four years and has proved its full sustainability!

This year is already the fourth edition. Which lessons did you learn from the past ones?
The patience, hard work and dedication are keys for success. If you focus more on the organizational matters rather than on the self-promotion you are always able to succeed and achieve any goal, no matter how non-realistic and ambitious it may look like in the beginning. At least this was the lesson I and my team have learned from the past years.

Which were the topics covered in this year’s MEU?
The suggested topic of AMEU2014 was the “EU Common Foreign and Security Policy in Light of the Ukrainian Crisis”. In our belief each conference should have a message inside, and our message was clear: peace and security are cornerstones to develop a democratic society and sustainable democracy on the European continent. During the activities of AMEU2014 itself, the participants had three plenary sittings, discussed the ongoing political situation in Ukraine, debated about the NATO Wales Summit 2014 and adopted a resolution in regard of the pressure exercised by the Russian government on the Eastern Partnership countries and in particular destabilization of Eastern Ukraine.

The participants also took part in the high level panel discussion titled “Where does the EU EaP Programme Lead to?”, with the participation of the Head of the EU Delegation to Armenia H.E. Mr. Traian Hristea, representatives of the Armenian civil society and the Youth Advisory Council of the Council of Europe.

How many participants did you have? Were there also participants coming from other countries?
This edition was a very special one, as first of all it was the biggest thematic political simulation conference ever organized in Armenia, gathering 140 young people from 16 different countries in Yerevan. The countries geography was huge: from Spain to Kazakhstan. I think this multicultural segment of the project is the most important one, as it allows first of all the local Armenian participants to get to know their future colleagues, as well as to experience something truly European.

You have also cooperated with the EU Delegation to Armenia. Do you think that organizing events such as MEU are meaningful for Armenia’s relations with the EU?
I consider this type of events to be the cornerstone of Armenia-EU relations, as they allow firstly the Armenian young people to get better understanding about the European Union and how its policies impact our country. Whenever we talk about the European integration process of any non-EU member states, it is vital to have a high level of political integration matched with the required level of civic integration.

And talking about it – can you tell us a bit about the current status of these relations (Armenia-EU), and what is expected in the next few years?
Well, one of the foreign policy priorities of Armenia is the integration with the European family, on the basis of the commitments and common values, undertaken within the framework of cooperation with the European Union. In July 2013, Armenia and the EU successfully finalized talks over the Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, which however were not signed due to Armenia’s decision to join the Russian-led and newly formed Eurasian Economic Union. It is worth to mention that in Armenia this decision is mostly considered to be an exclusively economic decision, which also means that Armenia remains totally open to develop and accordingly sign with the European Union the political segment of the Association Agreement.

Currently, after one year of stalemate caused both with the formation of the new European Commission as well as with the finalization of Armenia’s access to the Eurasian Economic Union, it seems that the Armenian and European sides are getting back to talk. Now it is very important to understand what type of cooperation we would have. I personally think and hope that very soon we would have much more material information in this regard and hopefully by the EU-EaP Riga Summit 2015 the sides would agree over a new legal framework of cooperation. I would also like to emphasize the role of the new Erasmus+ programme, which opens up a huge window of opportunities for the Armenian students.

Last but not least – what about AEGEE-Yerevan? How many members does it have, and which activities do you usually organize?
Well, AEGEE-Yerevan is definitely blossoming now! Currently there are around 50 members registered and more than half of them are directly involved in the everyday activities of the organization. We of course organize classical AEGEE events (SUs, LTCs and etc.), but what is much more important is that we are regularly implementing the EU funded local short and long term programs, mostly tackling civic education and youth mobility, which are also included as Focus Areas in the Strategic Plan of AEGEE-Europe for 2014-2017. Accordingly, this leads also to a higher level of professionalism of our board and members. I do not want to say that we perceive AEGEE in a different way, but we are trying to be very professional with any event and hopefully the future boards would keep this good tradition.

Which are the future plans for the antenna?
We always aim as high as it is possible! AEGEE-Yerevan really wants to host one of the upcoming Network Meetings in 2015, and why not? We also want to bring one of the statutory events to Yerevan in the future! At least we surely have both the human resources and professional capacity to make this happen.

Written by Anna Gumbau, AEGEE-Barcelona

On the 17th of July this year an airplane departing from Amsterdam crashed, while it was flying over the Ukrainian province of Donetsk, which is currently beset by pro-Russian groups. The crash could be seen as a tragedy on itself, but it could also be seen as a part of a greater conflict.

As the occasionally violent protests in Ukraine show, lines have been drawn between a pro-European and a pro-Russian side. However, by using the words pro-Europe and pro-Russia, people give off the illusion that Russia is not a part of Europe, but rather Europe’s opposite. It also supposes that the pro-Russian faction in Ukraine wants their country to be the opposite of Europe or that the EU Association Agreement is a join-Europe-today signup sheet. When someone believes this to be true or believes Europe stands for benevolent democracies or Russia for a malevolent dictatorship, this person might suffer from a almost 2500-year-old bias that the East is evil.

In the 6th century B.C. Greek explorer Anaximander categorised the earth. He devised it to be surrounded by one large ocean and divided by three rivers, which flowed from the outer ocean to the eastern part of the Mediterranean, thus dividing the earth into three continents: Europe, Asia and Libya. (Side note: according to Anaximander’s map East-African countries like Kenya would be part of Asia)

After the Grecian victory in the 5th century B.C. Greco-Persian Wars, however, the Greeks, mainly the Athenians and their allies, conceived the divide between Asia, home of the Persians, and Europe, home of the Greeks, to be both a natural and cultural one. The East, according to the Athenians, was stained by despotism, decadence and debauchery, whereas the west was characterised by democracy, superiority and decency. This was partially, because they had recently become a democracy by overthrowing their dictator, Hippias, who fled to Ionia (nowadays the west coast of Turkey) and allied himself with the enemy Persian Empire. Victory over the Persians might at the time very well have been seen as victory of democracy against the old ways.

This biased worldview, however, especially for Europe turned out to be a fallacy, since Europe has had its fair share of autocrats in the past: Roman dictators such as Sulla and Caesar, Roman emperors such as Caligula, Claudius and Constantine, the self proclaimed French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and kings such as Charles I of England, Frederick II of Prussia and, Louis XIV ‘the Sun King’ of France might come to mind. In the 21st century it is even hard to argue that concepts like chattel slavery or modern imperialism are indicators of either superiority or decency in the West.

While Russia could be considered to be less democratic than all of the other EU states or candidate members, it does not have to be categorised as a dictatorship or so much as an evil dictatorship. When someone reads about the conflict in Ukraine, western media often tend to view the Association Agreement, between the EU and the Ukrainian government in Kiev to be a ‘haha-in-your-face’ victory over Russia. This discourse, however, actually seems to be nothing but a cocktail of Cold War sentiments, infused with the ancient ‘East-is-evil’ bias. As a matter of fact, considering its elected house of representatives one could argue that Russia is more democratic than other states in the west of Europe such as Vatican City or Liechtenstein. Simply because it lies in the East, it does not mean that Russia or the Russian people instinctively despise either democracy or Europe. As the Anaximander’s map shows, the divide between Europe and Asia seems to be somewhere between arbitrary and non-existent.

Placing the aforementioned bias aside, there is, however, a political and economical divide in the border regions of Russia, which causes the conflict in Ukraine. With the signing of the Association Agreement on the 27th of June 2014 Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have agreed to implement a number of reforms aimed at improving democracy, the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and at creating a well-functioning market economy and sustainable development in return for the creation of a framework to aid the enforcement of these reforms.

This Agreement, however, could have already been signed half a year ago by Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yanukovych, were it not for the political and economic alliances that presently fuel the conflict in Ukraine. Yanukovych refused to do what Ukraine’s current president Petro Poroshenko did, because of Ukraine’s shift from a non-associated economy to a politically charged one. In 2001 Ukraine had founded GUAM, an organisation to support democracy and economic development with its other members: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova. One of the core principles of this organisation was that it was to be neutral, meaning not to the EU or to Russia aligned. However, between 2010 and 2013 Yanukovych not only considered Ukraine to become a member of the EU, but also to become part of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. In response to this, both the EU and Russia declared that Ukraine could not become a member of both economic zones. Subsequently Yanukovych was persuaded by Russia not to sign the Association Agreement with the EU and strengthen Ukraine’s ties with Russia instead. Immediately after this decision protests broke out in Kiev, prompting a regime change, a transfer of the Crimean peninsula to Russia and a civil insurgence in the East of the Ukraine supported by Russia in order to pursue its economic interests with Ukraine and on top of which a plane from Amsterdam crashed.

In short, by signing the Association Agreement the government in Kiev has agreed to aid in conforming Ukraine’s democratic norms as well as its trade and customs regulations to those of the EU and that much of the European market will open up to Ukrainian exports. With the signing of similar Agreements by Georgia and Moldova these countries will receive similar benefits. Furthermore, now three of the four members of GUAM have aligned themselves with the European Union through these Association Agreements, it might become interesting for Azerbaijan to ponder upon a pro-European course as well.

However, as the plane crash demonstrates, when two political bodies fight, in this case for the pursuit of economic interests, civilians die. The fighting continues every day in Ukraine and the Association Agreement is by no means an end to it. However, without bias at least it becomes visible that the insurgence is not a glorified conflict between Good and Evil, democracy against dictatorships or West versus East.

Written by Willem Laurentzen, AEGEE-Nijmegen

Between 7th and 12th of March the members of AEGEE-Lviv visited AEGEE-Aachen. Along with being a cultural exchange event, it was also held within the framework of Eastern Partnership Project. Fellow members got to spend a few days filled with activities aimed at discovering the German culture and exploring the charming city Aachen and it’s surroundings. Next to that, members of AEGEE-Aachen got the opportunity to follow workshops and discussions on history, recent events and the current situation in Ukraine. Both organisers and participants shared their thoughts about the event.

What are your impressions of the part of the exchange held in Aachen, people you have met during it and the atmosphere of the event in general?

Kostas Tsoleridis (AEGEE-Aachen): I believe that the atmosphere was beartastic. Despite the fact that most people did not really know each other from before and only a few of us had met previously, there were no problems like a “slow start” in the beginning. After the first day (or better said, the first few hours) the atmosphere was very warm. I think the various activities that we had planned for the beginning (ice breaking games and a rich, tasty and with love prepared brunch) helped a lot.

I want to strongly encourage other antennas to do their own exchanges. It is a fascinating experience, a wonderful way to understand other people’s traditions, culture and habits and the next action agenda encourages it as well!

I am really looking forward to go to Lviv in June and meet all the wonderful AEGEE-Lviv members again!

Olya Ilnytska (AEGEE-Lviv): It was really amazing. Although I couldn’t stay with these fun, mega kind, curious and slightly crazy people untill the end of the exchange, these few days were enough to understand that a certain piece of my heart (or soul – still undecided) will forever remain in this city. The organizers, with the help of some magic (or typical German potion), managed to make us, at least me, feel like home all the time. The atmosphere was as if I came to visit my beloved cousins for the weekend and I didn’t want to go home. You know what? My impressions are not amazing, they’re fantastic, certainly fantastic.  P.S: But still one question is unanswered: what does the fox say?

Sarah Buchmin (AEGEE-Aachen): In my opinion, the exchange between AEGEE-Lviv and AEGEE-Aachen was great and we all spent some really nice days together. The exchange students were really friendly, open minded and seemed to have enjoyed their stay in Aachen a lot. The atmosphere was relaxed and pleasant on all events and trips, which shows that the participants of both countries got along with each other very well. For me the best events were the European Night as well as the day trips to Monschau and Cologne and the city rally. The exchange students told us a lot about their country and culture, so now I am really looking forward to visiting them, too.

Nadiia Stasyk (AEGEE-Lviv): I am very excited while recalling the Aachen exchange and these cool people that made it real! Friendly and sunny atmosphere while discovering Germany, eating currywurst in the morning, playing Flunkyball and sunbathing near Aachen river. I couldn’t feel my legs after exploring new places and dancing all nights and in the end I even lost my voice after singing karaoke like a rockstar! I miss Aachen and these lovely people that created the sweetest memories for me and I have a strong desire to come back again.

Was the exchange effective for you in terms of gaining knowledge about the history of Ukraine and getting a better insight on what’s been happening there during the last four months?

Christian Schumann (AEGEE-Aachen): As usual, we only know what the news reporters say. Hence, we know Vladimir Putin is bad, Yulia Tymoschenko was on hunger-strike and Vitalyi  Klitschko is fighting with words for democracy. As always, only superficial knowledge. However, for the first time in my life, I had the opportunity to get first-hand information about the current crises. The by far most important point to mention, is why Ukrainians are disappointed by late action of the European Union. Back in 1994 Ukraine gave all their nuclear weapons up to gain acceptance of their sovereignty, territorial integrity and independency. Russia seems to have forgotten this. Complemented by an open discussion, the members of AEGEE-Lviv invited us all to ask questions and to discuss the current situation. Overall it was a very important experience.

Maria  Lüke (AEGEE-Aachen): Yes indeed, there was definitely a lot of great cultural exchange! It was especially intense, because during the exchange Russia was just preparing the voting at Crimea and the theme “Ukraine” was (and still is) very omnipresent in the German Media.

Especially interesting was the talk our guests prepared and the discussion that followed. I liked it a lot, that they explained us a lot about the Ukrainian background. Now I know for example, that Cossacks are not necessarily typical for Russia, but also for Ukraine and that there are a lot of special religious groups like the Greek catholics, who acknowledge the Pope in Rome and different Orthodox groups. I liked it a lot that we could discuss even difficult themes, as “how to deal with a transient government, that is authorised not in the typical way” or “reasons for and against being hard with Putin” or “what role do economic interests have for the European governments” in a positive atmosphere.

Also, I enjoyed the chats about the political situation while walking through Aachen and Köln during the following days and I think talking face to face is really good, because it becomes obvious that even if specific views might differ, everyone is caring very much and wants the same thing in the end! For me personally there is a dilemma: on one hand I really want to help Ukrainian people to ensure their sovereignty and support them standing up for more democracy and justice. But, on the other hand I really want to de- escalate a possible conflict between Russia and Europe, especially from a German point of view with the history of brutal fights against Russia during the Second World War and the positive political experience with Russia with the slogan “Change through rapprochement”.

Still, during the exchange I got the point, that for Ukrainians the preventing war argument is not so strong, if there are already some war-like situations in their country. Also for me it was tough to hear, that some were disappointed by Europe, because of the restrained strategy and very tentatively planning of sanctions. I really felt for them when someone said, that it can be exhausting to hear again, that “Europe is deeply concerned“ but doesn’t do something.

If I can make two wishes: firstly, it would be great to have a more neutral and more multi-faceted reporting and commentatorship, because every country seems to have a leak of some pieces of information somewhere. And of course secondly, I wish that after all there will be a good end for Ukraine.

Another cultural highlight for me was the Ukrainian movie- night, where our Ukrainian friends showed us Firecrosser. It is a love story taking place during the second world war in the Ukraine, and very interesting, e.g. because of the diversity in language, with the Ukrainian, Russian and Tatar language and because of the unexpected twist, which is definitely not the predictable Hollywood end we were expecting somehow!

What impressed you the most during the event?

Nataliia Bidnyk (AEGEE-Lviv): Since it was only my second experience as a member of AEGEE and I have never been to Germany before, this exchange was really full of new impressions. I was amazed by the friendliness and hospitality of AEGEE-Aachen members and the beauty of all German cities we have visited. The program of event was very intensive and interesting, which made everyday an exciting adventure. Also I was pleasantly surprised by their profound knowledge about the current political situation in Ukraine and genuine interest towards it and the Ukrainian culture and history. I really liked the first part of exchange held in Aachen!

Sarah Buchmin (AEGEE-Aachen): I was impressed the most by the way people from different countries get used to each other in such a short period of time. The exchange students from Lviv were in Aachen only for a couple of days, but this time was still enough to get to know them pretty well and to take them into ones heart. I was positively surprised by that, because up to that point I only had a comparable experience during my Erasmus semester abroad, which took more than four months. Now I am more convinced of the great value of exchanges, even if they only last four or five days. Additionally, I was impressed by our guests’ ability to speak English. Most of them speak really fluently and hardly any problems came up with regard to communication.

Victoria Horiachko (AEGEE-Lviv): It’s challenging to choose one thing that was the most impressive for me – travelling to a foreign country, living and spending all that time with its citizens and getting to know their culture always brings loads of impressions. Thus I wouldn’t bore the interested reader with my subjective observations and rather concentrate on what amazed me the most about the people who were hosting us, organising everything, showing us around and keeping an enjoyable company.

Probably the most astonishing for me about our friends from Aachen was finding out their deep awareness of the situation in Ukraine. Sure, you would say, everything that’s been happening there has been a hot topic for months already – everyone is acquainted with what’s been going on. However during the workshop and discussions not only were they listening to our points of view but they were also taking active part in those conversations and expressed their attitude to the discussed topics.

Ana Isabel Ramones (AEGEE-Aachen): I was impressed the most by the enthusiasm of the AEGEE-Aachen people. In every part of the programme Aachen people were involved and it was great to see what an active and motivated local we are at the moment! I am really looking forward to the other half of the exchange in Lviv and to see the great spirit of AEGEE-Lviv and Aachen together again!

For five days you were hosted by students in Aachen and have spent all that time with them. How would you compare your everyday life with theirs?

Natalka Kinash (AEGEE-Lviv): People in Aachen seem to be magical creatures, who live in a wonderland, where you have beer instead of water and summer instead of spring. I’ll try to be an unbiased observer, who just compares some obvious facts.
First and foremost, the average age of an university graduate in Lviv varies between 21 and 22, whereas in Aachen people graduate from university when they are already 25-26. The main benefit, of course, is that they can enjoy an independent joyful life without many responsibilities longer than people in Ukraine. On the other hand, if you are willing to start your career as soon as possible, then education in Ukraine is much better option. Aachen is full of students whose studies have more or less a technical orientation. That’s not true about Lviv, because we still have lots of classical disciplines such as history, philosophy, culturology, etc. The next important issue is money. Many Ukrainian students get paid scholarships from government if they pass their exams successfully. You don’t have to apply for it, it’s just a part of our system of education. In Aachen the situation is quite different: you have to pay some fee for your studies and normally you work during your studies. Most students are employed by the university and their job is connected with the topic of a course paper. In my opinion, that’s a really big benefit for them.

Finally, I want to describe my personal impressions. All the people from Aachen are more mature, than we are. Most of them live apart from their families, so they are more independent. They live, work, study, socialize and have fun. Students have to multitask a lot. None of them behaves like a closed strict German from the stereotypes. Everybody is so open-minded, ready to dialogue, that I simply admire that. Leo, who was hosting me and Nadiia, was doing his Erasmus in Barcelona, his diploma is about photoeffect, he teaches children maths at the weekends. Leo is always smiling. I can’t say that many people live like this in Lviv, but maybe it’s just about being in AEGEE, about being active. But anyway I like it!

Oksana Stuha (AEGEE-Lviv): Well, during the five days of the incredible stay in Aachen we have come across a lot of similar and divergent features of life styles among the Ukrainian and German students. I would say that it was not so apparent since the time we have spent with our new friends was not enough for a deeper look into the real everyday life, but still some of the differences were obvious.

The most striking distinctive feature lied in the issues of where to live. It puzzled me that the dorms in Germany are almost the same price as the hired apartments, whereas, the dorms in Ukraine are extremely cheap but correspondingly they are in a bad condition as well. Moreover for Germans the possibility to have a job, at least part-time, is pretty high, notwithstanding the fact that it has some limited hours per week. Sometimes Ukrainian students have to choose between work and studies, but it is not always the case.

And what I liked most in their everyday life was the fact that they are always positive. They always look on the bright side of their lives. This fact inspires a lot! On the contrary, our youth is lost in their problems, which gives an impression that everyone lives in her or his own shell and never wants to put her/his nose out of it. One more thing, Aachen people were very punctual! What interests me too is the fact whether German girls are as punctual while getting ready for a date as they are on the daily basis. I dare to say that it is something that all the girls from all around the world have in common. And last but not the least, both Germans and Ukrainians are very friendly. They are friendly not only every day, but every hour, every minute and every waking moment in general and this is the fact that unites everyone!

Written by Victoria Horiachko, AEGEE-Lviv

The Eastern Partnership Project concluded last November in Autumn Agora Zaragoza, where their results were presented. But that does not mean it is over. The latest developments in the countries of the Eastern Partnership, and especially the EaP Summit in Vilnius, have shown that there is still a lot of work to do, and so The AEGEEan has spoken to Adrian Browarczyk (AEGEE-Poznan), Project Manager of the new Eastern Partnership Project, about their future plans.

The AEGEEan: Adrian, the Eastern Partnership Project concluded in Zaragoza with a standing ovation to the team. Now is the turn for the EaP[2]: why was it decided to launch a second ‘edition’ of the EaP?

Adrian Browarczyk: Since 2010 many things have changed. The EU program developed into an important diplomatic tool in frames of the Neighbourhood Policy. A significant number of binding agreements has been signed between interested sides and the level of bilateral cooperation between EU and EaP countries is quite gratifying even though some of the target countries proved their independence of choice in a surprising way (i.e. Armenia suddenly assigned to Customs Union roadmap at the end of 2013). Nonetheless, internally we also managed to step further by bringing the issue closer to an ordinary AEGEEan by means of a series of conferences, workshops, trainings and cultural events. In total we did a great job we are still proud of. Such backpack filled in with valuable experiences made us feel that we cannot leave the matter that quickly – it appeared that many crucial challenges are still far ahead which obviously means we are obliged to keep going with the undertaking Alla Resheten and others are parenting.

Which points is this edition going to have in common with its predecessor?

First of all, I would like to emphasise that even if we decided to keep the name of the project, we share the logo in a refreshed version and the team structure to a certain point resembles the previous one, we are basically a new creation issued by people who significantly didn’t contribute to EaP before. Nevertheless, as for the points we do share, I am proud to state that some of the members of EaP, namely Alla Resheten, Daryna Skryl and Armenak Minasyants, granted us with their support and advice – they form today a consultancy body which i.e. points out things we could focus on and motivates us to work further on things they find important. Furthermore, regarding the thematic sphere, a new project crew came up with the idea of centering on civil society development in six program countries as well as on promotion of active citizenship and raising awareness of its importance within our network, mainly in the EaP area. These points coincide with the priorities EaP had before, yet we aim at developing them by adding the value of structured dialogue and studies on gender equality in target societies.

And which new things are you planning to introduce?

I would like to begin with the team structure. Firstly, we introduced a position of the Impact Measurement Manager. This move was motivated mainly by our willingness to examine the impact we have in a structured way, keeping it transparent and helpful for generations to come. Secondly, when I was thinking about the strategy our project should implement, I realized that we need a group of people helping us in seeking for materials, analyzing resources and supporting in content creation. These are the reasons our Research team was constituted. Thirdly, as for the project’s plans, I would see us closely cooperating with locals from EaP region in terms of promoting liaison relations, organizing events related to main project aims and also sharing an overview on things we may not be aware of. Being visible externally by strengthening links with our partners (i.e. Civil Society Forum) and taking active part in shaping policy AEGEE-Europe strives for are among goals I would like to achieve with our team.

Can you tell us about activities that you are currently planning?

As we are currently brainstorming about the action agenda I am only able to name these ones we really would like to happen. Apart from organizing a series of trainings on youth participation and related topics, we are planning to help locals in hosting Active Citizenship Action Days. The event formula will be chosen in cooperation with hosting antenna, nonetheless we would like to follow the example of the convention YVote 2014 Project has created. Moreover, as we do see the importance of democratic processes, we have established already a link with the Election Observation Project which allows us to contribute to a wide range of election observation missions. Some of our members participate in the Short-Term Observer E-Learning course organized by OSCE /ODIHR in order to gain the knowledge that will allow them to legally examine elections’ reality mainly in the Eastern Partnership region. Regarding other initiatives we plan to undertake I would mention a two-week long “Bus/Train tour” through Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova with participants from the Eastern Partnership area and other European countries. The event will target the promotion of the structured dialogue at all levels and  will also underline the importance of being an active citizen in mentioned countries. Panel discussions with experts, different workshops and trainings will be organized in order to achieve the main project goals. As for the activities we would like to hold in a bigger external perspective I would name the ones where we are considered as partners: the side event of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum that will take place this autumn in Tbilisi and a series of initiatives mentioned by Armenak Minasyants, the Policy Officer on European Integration, in his Action Agenda. Eventually I am sharing with you our current action achievements: apart from publishing a couple of articles, participating in EaP Young Leaders Forum, organizing workshops at Zaragora and NWM Poznan, we recently supported the conference on recent Ukrainian events in Lille and we set up a cooperation with AEGEE-Bratislava in order to provide them with content during their SU organized along with AEGEE-Lviv and AEGEE-Odessa. Two other ‘work-together’ suggestions appeared lately from Europe On Track 2 and EuroArab sides – stay tuned and do not miss updates on our brand new website!

At the same time, the protests in Ukraine struck short after the Agora in Zaragoza. Has it influenced the ideas of the project in some way?

We feel much more motivated and eager to follow the thematic direction we have chosen. Recent events in Ukraine proved that the state of active citizenship there still remains a challenge to work on. Both sides of these clashes showed that Ukrainian people are not fully acquainted with the model of civil society other European countries share. Therefore, we would like to contribute to changes that will surely happen not only in Ukraine but also in the whole region. We would like to support the EaP youth in their call for democracy and the rule of law. I feel that with our project we are able to have an impact to a certain extent on the birth of the societies completely aware of their rights.

What about you, Adrian: what motivated you to be the Project Manager?

Adrian Browarczyk

It was a conjunction of different circumstances. The main reason I considered becoming the Project Manager was Alla’s suggestion at the previous EaP live meeting in Brussels last spring. I was thinking about it a lot during summer holidays, noodling over whether my leading skills and strengths are sufficient for such task. When I counted up the possibilities this challenge brings along I decided on stepping further and taking the responsibility of managing the project. From the very beginning I had people around who supported me with so much needed advice at that time. With Roland Papp (AEGEE-Budapest) and Marta Wnuk (AEGEE-Poznań) we dealt together with the first tasks and shaping the idea we would like to implement straight after Spring Agora Patra. I would also like to mention my personal interest in the Eastern Partnership issue, which has been developing since I was accepted as a member of the project’s team in 2012. My motivation grew when I had a possibility to represent AEGEE-Europe with Armenak Minasyants at Eastern Partnership Youth Forum in Kaunas last October. Since then everything seems to be moving in the right direction.

During your time in the first Eastern Partnership Project, which were the most valuable lessons that you learnt?

I finally got used to function in the international environment of youth activists who really did see the importance of the matter they worked on. We faced many quaint questions which I liked a lot as at the same time I was developing my interest in specific areas (I did research on Moldovan and Transnistrian youth and topics related to the internet freedom in Azerbaijan). We used to work late with grant applications and other tasks which actually determined my further work profile – EaP team mates receive my emails even at 4 in the morning. Another lesson I learnt is that while cooperating with partners from EaP region you must be very patient because some of the topics you touch are sometimes differently perceived. Nonetheless, over one year of active membership made me feel that I acquired enough knowledge to work on my own from now on.

Which are the outcomes you would like the project to have?

As a team we are certain that adding a youth perspective to the Eastern Partnership initiative of the European Union will be a significant contribution to building a united European society. I believe that we will be able to influence the recognition of youth power in target societies and that our work will contribute to establishing a strong civil society based on youth engagement. Consequently, I do hope we will successfully raise awareness on the role that active citizenship has in the transition states and that we will obtain young people with knowledge and tools regarding citizens’ rights and duties. I also believe that, by means of our actions in cooperation with the Election Observation Project, we will prove the importance of the participation in voting processes. Finally, I wish we will effectively promote and therefore increase effectiveness of Eastern Partnership program youth involved in the structured dialogue led with EU and regional stakeholders

Team structure of the Eastern Partnership Project:

CORE TEAM:

• Project Manager – Adrian Browarczyk, AEGEE-Poznań
• Content Managers – Roland Papp, AEGEE-Budapest and Marta Wnuk, AEGEE-Poznań
• Impact Measurement Manager – Léa Hannaoui-Saulais, AEGEE-Lille
• Financial Manager – Claudio Armandi, AEGEE-Napoli
• FR Manager – Zoltán Hradszky, AEGEE-Budapest
• PR Manager – Mert Can Yilmaz, AEGEE-Ankara

TEAM MEMBERS:

• FR Support team: Izawetta Manuel, AEGEE-Poznań and Cerem Çavdar, AEGEE-Ankara
• PR Support team: Clemens Adler, AEGEE-Karlsruhe and Alice Nitsch, AEGEE-Bamberg

RESEARCH:

• Damiano Deidda, AEGEE-Cagliari
• Saskia Heller, AEGEE-Hamburg
• Mara Bubberman, AEGEE-Groningen
• Ferran Huidobro Casamitjana, AEGEE-Tarragona
• Ivan Bielik, AEGEE-Brno

Written by Anna Gumbau, AEGEE-Barcelona

What is the Eastern Partnership Summit?

Eastern Partnership (EaP) Summits are held every two years (the first two took place in 2009 in Prague, Czech Republic; and in 2011 it was in Warsaw, Poland). During these meetings the course of the Eastern Partnership is discussed, the objectives for the next two years are determined, and the prospects for the future are drawn up. The results of the meeting are reflected in a Joint Declaration, which becomes the starting point for further development of the Eastern Partnership. The 2013 Summit took place in Vilnius on 28-29th of November.

What were the concrete results of the summit in Vilnius 2013?

• Initiation of the process of signing Association Agreements (AAs) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) between the EU and Georgia and Moldova (expected to be signed in autumn 2014).
• A temporary postponement of signing the AA and DCFTA with Ukraine.
• The signing of a visa facilitation agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan.
• A proposal of the European Commission on a visa-free regime with Moldova.
• A joint Statement of the EU and the Republic of Armenia.
• An agreement on Georgian involvement in international missions of the EU.

If you would like to know more about these results, there was a compregensive article published on them on the website of the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (also called the Concilium or Council of Ministers).

Which main issues were raised?

The main focus of the summit was related to the refusal of Ukraine president, Viktor Yanukovych, to sign the AA. The EU was ready to retreat from the criticism of selective justice in the case of Yulia Tymoschenko, but Yanukovych rejected the signing of AA referring to inadequate financial aid to upgrade the Ukrainian economy and too severe financial losses in trade with Russia (for more information you can read this comprehensive Analysis). Dalia Grybauskaite, president of Lithuania, told reporters that the road Ukraine had chosen did not lead anywhere. However, the EU still keeps its door open for Ukraine and Ukrainian president told he was still committed to sign the AA “in the near future”.

Russia, although not EaP member, became an important part in the story of the Vilnius summit. Alexey Pushkov, the head of State Duma (lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia) International Relations Committee, said that the EU had not succeeded in the ‘effort to isolate Russia’. He added one could expect more anti-government “Maidans” and continued EU support of Ukrainian opposition.

What do AA and DCFTA mean generally?

Association Agreements are international agreements that the EU has concluded with countries aiming to set up an all-embracing framework for bilateral cooperation. These agreements normally provide a progressive liberalisation of trade. In case of EaP countries, they do not guarantee a future membership of the EU (as there are also AA’s between the EU and non-European countries like Chile, Israel and South Africa). However, each country, nonetheless, negotiates an AA individually with the EU and there must be an intention to establish close economic and political cooperation and a privileged relationship between the EC and its partners.

Moreover, the state that has signed an AA is required to implement acquis communautaire of the EU (about acquis). This implementation covers a wide range of policies and rules for the country. The reason behind this is the need for similar or common rules within the single market. This might mean that the country has to undergo some painful reforms, which is why some countries have refused to sign and AA.

Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, the DCFTA is included in the AA, but the free trade agreement has to be negotiated separately. It provides more advanced free trade zone between two or more countries. Traditionally, standard free trade agreements foresee a mutual opening of markets for goods and services. The reason that this agreement is called ‘Deep and Comprehensive’ is that it would go much further. It would be “comprehensive” because it would cover a wide array of trade-related issues and it would be “deep” because it aims to eliminate ‘behind the border’ obstacles for trade. So a DCFTA practically means a partial opening/extension of the EU’s internal market  to the country signing the agreement (a case study of the Georgian DCFTA can be found here).

What do the AA and DCFTA mean for Georgia and Moldova?

Firstly, it has to be said that neither Georgia nor Moldova have already signed AA and DCFTA. At the summit in Vilnius just the process of initiating the signature took place and it is expected to be finished in the autumn of 2014. Then, however, the AA still needs to be ratified by all EU-member states, which is quite a time-consuming process. And in 2014 Moldovan parliamentary elections will take place with the possible win for the communist party whom favours trade with Russia, but it is not against the EU trade relations. So the course Moldova will take after the elections will also still be interesting to watch. In any case one can say that both, Georgia and Moldova have not yet arrived at the end of the road.

But today, both countries already enjoy a so called Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) in trade relations with the EU. The system offers limited preferences to the EU market. Once DCFTA comes into force, even the GSP, as well as various trade tariffs, will be abolished and these countries will enter a free trade area with the EU. Advantages of closer relations with the EU (even without prospect of full membership) are as following:

• DCFTA will encourage foreign direct investments into both countries, since both of them will share similar legislation according to European standards.
• From this point results that both countries will gain access to greater markets in the EU and therefore increase their trade exchange.
• Last but not least, citizens of both countries will get a variety of products and services that respect European standards of consumer protection and quality.

The most obvious objection against this closer cooperation with the EU is implementation of burdensome European regulations. It is sometimes a painful and costly process with short-term losses (as we had seen in case of Central and Eastern post-soviet countries before their accession into the EU), but it is weighted by long-term gains of stable and sustainable trade cooperation. At this point, the country and its leadership have to decide whether short-term costs are worth long-term benefits.

There are some obstacles as well. First, implementation of AA and DCFTA requires strong administrative capacities, which both countries have currently been lacking. The reform of administrative capacities is thus needed before the official signature. Second, Georgian and Moldovan governments do not control complete custom territory of their own. In Georgia, there are the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and in Moldova there is the region of Transnistria. In both cases, central governments do not hold state power over these regions and therefore the implementation of AA and DCFTA is questionable.

Will they be implemented in these regions, even if central government of Georgia and Moldova do not control them? How could we assure the same standards of goods and services from these regions? Will the products from these regions have the same access to the European market, even if these regions have strong trade ties with Russia? These questions have to be answered before the signing of the AA and DCFTA can take place.

Aims for the next summit in Riga 2015

• Finalizing the signature of the AA with Georgia and Moldova (most likely in 2014).
• Achieving visa liberalization.
• Enhanced cooperation in the areas of illegal migration, drugs- & human trafficking, organized crime, and corruption.
• Strengthen the cooperation in the area of research & innovation, public institutions, interpersonal contacts, and agriculture & countryside development.
• Implementation of common infrastructure projects and a harmonization of transport policy.
• Deepening the cooperation on energy security.
• Bigger involvement of the EU in frozen conflict areas (Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Transnistria).
• Support of multilateral projects and initiatives, cross-country cooperation, small and medium enterprises, and structured dialogue in foreign policy.

How much money is invested?

With the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, the ‘European Neighbourhood Instrument’ becomes the main tool for supporting the EU Neighbourhood Policy. It has a total budget of more than €15 billion and covers 16 countries^[1], amongst which there are six EaP countries. Apart from this main source of funding, there are several other instruments involved like the Neighbourhood Investment Facility, Cross Border Cooperation program, and the European Investment Bank.

What lessons can be learnt from the Vilnius summit?

Firstly that the Eastern Partnership does not show consistent results and secondly, the EU should find a way to counter the Russian influence in the EaP region.

The results are inconsistent as the two main fields of EaP influence can be seen in the economic/mobility area and in the political area. The EaP results are far more successful in the former than the latter. This is because the success of the influence on the political area (democracy, respect to human rights, rule of law and good governance) is dependent on the will of domestic leaders to converge to the European standards and values. This is certainly not the case, not all EaP countries want to share the same values as the EU and, therefore, the impact of EaP is limited in this field.

One of possible solutions is to grant a full membership to the EaP countries if they comply with the rules of the EU as was done in the past with post-communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Another possible solution is to use the principle “more for more” in a more consistent and persuasive way (the more you reform, the more rewards from the EU you get). This principle has not worked well in the past, because of rigid European investments in the region. Since 2012, however, one can observe more flexible usage of that principle from the EU.

The second lesson was about Russia. Russia has its security and energy interests together with a cultural proximity, making it a very relevant actor in the area. The current Russian approach reflects zero-sum game (you either win or lose, there is no win-win option for anyone involved), which is harmful for the development of EaP programme because these countries need to be able to cooperate with Russia as well as the EU.

The EU should, therefore, rethink its strategy towards Russia and work to persuade the courty to choose cooperation instead of competing for the “spheres of influence” in the region. The idea of holding trilateral talks (for example between the EU, Ukraine and Russia) was rejected by the EU politicians at the summit. However, the competing projects of Eastern Partnership (EU initiative) and of Eurasian Economic Community (Russian initiative) need to be resolved in a cooperative way for the sake of these six ex-Soviet countries.

In the end, the Vilnius summit raised more questions than it gave answers. Can the results of the meeting be evaluated as successful without the signing of the AA with Ukraine? Has the EU taken a “time-out” with its eastern neighbours? Or has this summit divided countries into two categories – the ones willing to cooperate further with the EU, and the others having stronger doubts and closer relations with Russia? Should the EU be more selective in dealing with its partners, or more open? How should the EU behave towards Russia? We cannot fully answer any of these questions today but, hopefully, we will see positive answers to some of them in the near future.

Written by: Ivan Bielik (Eastern Partnership Project)

Yesterday marked the bloodiest day so far since the protests started in Ukraine. In one single day in Kyiv alone, more than 100 people have been killed and more than 500 people have been hospitalized according to the Maidan medical service coordinator.

People were found on the streets with single gunshot wounds in the neck, head or heart. So they aren’t being shot by police officers with the reason to disperse the crowd. These are no fascist radicals who are out to murder police officers. They are just people who try to protest against Yanukovych’s regime and protect their fellow countrymen from harm, and for this they are being murdered in cold blood. For those still having a hard time to believe all this, watch this video of an innocent grandmother being shot out of nowhere (take care! this video has very graphic contents) in the city of Khmelnytskyi. For good reason, many Ukrainians feel their state has been captured by a corrupt elite, which uses the most extreme forms of violence against its own people and which cannot be dislodged by the usual democratic means.

To understand the current divide in Ukraine, one has to understand the history and geography of the country and what is going on elsewhere. The western part of the country used to be part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was Polish territory between the two World Wars. While the eastern part and Crimea used to belong to the Russian Tsar. This, of course, left its mark on the different regions both culturally and economically. The west, north and center of Ukraine are primarily Ukrainian-speaking, while in the east and in Crimea, Russian is the dominant language. It’s in that part of the country where Yanukovych has his political base as well as where most of the rich oligarchs pulling strings behind the scenes, are from.

Of course, the real situation is far more complex than being described here. Almost all ethnic Ukrainians speak fluent Russian as well, and not everyone is so nationalistic that they hate everything Russian. In the east, recent events have surely eroded Yanukovych’s power base a bit and many people support him only because they don’t know what is happening right now in Kyiv (there is little or no information shared on the television/ radio) and because of the economic dependency on Russia. However, what is happening in Ukraine is about many other things than just a battle between closer ties with the European Union or with Russia. It’s about violence, corruption, lack of democracy and most of all accountability.

But all of this is still important as background information, if one is to look at the events happening outside of Kyiv. Even if the main Ukrainian TV station is still playing soap operas, the events in Kyiv are actually quite well covered in the European media. But there is a lot happening elsewhere as well, which isn’t getting the media coverage it deserves. Take the beautiful baroque city of Lviv in the western part of the country – the heartland of Ukrainian nationalism. There as well, hundreds of people took to the streets to protest. The offices of Yanukovych administration in Lviv were seized, as well as the prosecutors’ office. People forced the surrender of the police of the Interior ministry making officers come out with their hands up. Train traffic from Lviv to Kyiv was halted by the government because it is afraid that more people will be joining the protest there, while the people of Lviv themselves blocked a border crossing with Poland. Also in other western cities like Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil and Uzhorod, the people were able to capture local government offices.

The situation in Lviv might easily be as chaotic as in Kyiv, described Maryana Semenyak. “At this moment we don’t have any police at all in Lviv, so for the second day in a row it is the people who are patrolling the streets and protecting each other and making sure nobody robs banks or shops. There are always stupid people who want to make use of the situation. I’ve also seen with my own eyes titushki (street hooligans sponsored by the government) being out there to provoke people, destroying everything and trying to rob stores, only to pretend later that we are the terrorists and are to be blamed for this. I saw one yesterday who managed to convince people to destroy one huge shop, but thankfully normal people managed to stop them. All the boys that I know are around the city patrolling to make it safe.”

In Lviv there is a Maidan (large square ed.) as well, where protesters gather and where a lot is happening. “A few hours ago a guy was suddenly shooting with a gun, but no one got hurt as many people were around and were quickly able to stop him.” While the regional assembly in Lviv issued a statement condemning the Yanukovych regime for its violence on demonstrators in Kiev and declaring it took executive power locally for itself, people in the streets are actively building up barricades in front of the captured buildings and around the Maidan, making sure people stay safe from government violence and waiting for events to come. For anyone who watched the events in Kyiv unfold this must be an all too familiar sight, and one that an be seen all over western and central Ukraine now.

Building barricades in front of the Ministry of Interior.

It’s a whole different situation in Crimea, the peninsula stretching into the Black Sea in the south of Ukraine. This is the only region in Ukraine where ethnic Russians have a majority, comprising approximately 60 percent of its population of 2 million. Just 60 years ago the peninsula was transferred to Ukraine by the Russian President Khrushchev (reportedly while he was drunk).

Most of the titushki and berkut (Ukrainian special police) and other police forces in Kyiv are come from regions like Crimea and believe they are actually fighting against some kind of fascist rebellion which is out to threaten their Russian culture. When news got out through pro-Yanukovych TV channels that “far-right nationalist groups in Western Ukraine are arming themselves and creating havoc”, the reply of people here was to arm themselves and organize patrols to defend themselves from a supposed danger to come.

You can therefore also be sure that news about the Lviv regional assembly’s declaration to take the executive power in their own hands, will stir up a lot of emotions here. A majority of people here feel that their history, culture, ethnicity and most importantly their language rights are being threatened by the increasing strength of the anti-government movement.

During the last week, a Russian presidential adviser and leading Kremlin idealist: Surkov made a trip to Crimea to meet local political leaders, suddenly roads all over Crimea had thousands of billboards simply saying: “Stop Maidan”. This mysterious but lavishly funded organisation also managed to hire dozens of people as titushki and sent them to Kyiv and other cities. With a population here at odds with Maidan and with big Russian interests in the peninsula at stake (mostly concerning its naval base in Sevastopol) it no longer requires much imagination to see Ukraine tear up along ethic, linguistic, cultural and historical fault lines.

Even though today an agreement between the opposition and Yanukovych is being signed under auspices of European negotiators and early elections are being called, there is still a lot of mutual distrust, special interests and provocateurs trying to stir up emotions. The democratic gains of the 2004 Orange Revolution quickly evaporated when the victors failed to reach out to the Russophone southeast, énd made the same mistakes as their predecessors: a complete lack of transparency in governance.

Yanukovych failed himself as he also repeated the mistake of supporting the interests of a few oligarchs. He went against the direct wishes of the majority of the people and then ruthlessly destroyed all dissent in a dictatorial manner. It is clear that whatever will happen, he has discredited himself and cannot have a future role in Ukrainian politics.

One can only hope that after early elections, whoever comes out as winner will have the brains and power tp create a national reconciliation and calm down regional fears. There is no reason why people in Crimea couldn’t support Euromaidan. Moving closer to the EU means that Ukraine has to protect minorities and regional languages, which for them paradoxically may actually be what they want most. It will also mean better welfare standards on top of obvious benefits like the rule of law, a proper democracy and political freedom.

Also the European Union (EU) should learn from the past. Only a truly meant effort to win over the whole of Ukraine and seriously counter the destabilizing Russian influences will succeed. This includes financially protecting the country from Russian blackmail with gas and import tariffs, and protecting aging industries in the east of the country that are not ready yet to compete in the EU’s open market.

If Yanukovych is finally forced out of power and cooler heads in Ukraine and the EU persevere, after the rocky start it had as an independent nation since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Ukraine could get on the right track again. Otherwise, the events of the last weeks might only be a warning for more violence and destruction to come. The brave people of Ukraine who are risking their lives on the streets these days, deserve a nation with an accountable government which respects their civil rights and which will never repeat the horrific violence that was used against its own people the last few days.

Written by Koen Berghuis, AEGEE-Cluj-Napoca. Pictures by Maryana Semenyak, AEGEE-Lviv.

Recently we published the article giving you an insight into the story behind 2^nd place winner of the Events Committee’s (EvC) Facebook competition. Now it is time to reveal the winner which includes not only AEGEE-Oviedo but also AEGEE-Yerevan and the Eastern Partnership Project Team.

The winning photo

The Peace Building in Europe took place in Gijón last year, and the EvC’s competition has granted us the opportunity to get to know more about the event, how it came about, and the significance of exchanges among AEGEE antennae. Several of the participants of the event took their time to contribute to an interesting interview which you can read below.

Congratulations on winning the competition, why did you take part in it?

Tereza Tokmajyan (AEGEE-Yerevan) Thanks! It all begins with checking the dozens of AEGEE-emails in my inbox. I know every AEGEEan feel this every day and every week.  And while I was reading the info about what we need for participating in this great competition, the photo of our crazy event came out. I just wanted everyone to know all the amazing people who have organised this project.

What does it make you feel that you managed to win?

Gerardo García Díaz (AEGEE-Oviedo): I’m really happy and also proud because we managed to win, and because we won just for “being ourselves”.

Panagiotis Barlampas (AEGEE-Athina): Friends from the Network  helped us spread the joy

Tereza: And it was like: HELL YES we did it.

Take us back to the event, who came up with the idea to organize a YiA project between AEGEE-Yerevan and AEGEE-Oviedo?

Tereza: As far as I know, it was not directly the idea of AEGEE-Yerevan or AEGEE-Oviedo. The project was proposed by the AEGEE Eastern Partnership Project Team (EaP) back in summer 2011. Armenak Minasyants, who at that time was member of that team, developed and reshaped the project with the AEGEE EaP Team. Later on AEGEE-Oviedo was approached and to be honest, for the first application in 2011 the guys failed and the project got the rejection and lots of people thought that it was the big ned of a cooperation that had not even really started yet. It was a big disappointment. Amazingly, Armenak,  AEGEE-Yerevan’s ex-president, and Alberto Cuesta Noriega, from AEGEE-Oviedo, with the big support of AEGEE EaP Project Manager Alla Resheten, found totally new motivation and inspiring hope for rechecking the whole application, making plenty new amendments to it, developing a new agenda and concept and of course applying for the EU Youth in Action funding. It took from the both of lots of hard work, patience and dedication but in the end of the day the result you may already see on your own.

When asked why the choice of AEGEE-Yerevan and AEGEE-Oviedo for the project Tereza said with a smile “Maybe we are the marvelous, absolutely fabulous antennae in AEGEE Network?” and continued “But if we talk more seriously, the partnership was firstly based on the big personal trust of our above mentioned main organisers. Additionally it should be mentioned that the participants were not only from AEGEE-Oviedo or AEGEE-Yerevan. The organisers have involved as the partner promoters AEGEE-Athina, AEGEE-Tbilisi, AEGEE-Kyiv, AEGEE-Budapest, and Moldavian National Youth Council. In the end we got totally crazy and motivated participants plus awesome trainers’ team”.

What did you do in Oviedo?

Gerardo: Actually the event took place in Gijón. Oviedo is the Capital of the Principality of Asturias and the University of Asturias is the University of Oviedo. But the largest city on the region and the biggest campus of this University in is Gijón.

Armenak Minasyants (AEGEE-Yerevan): It was a great selection of the location: Atlantic Ocean on your one side, beautiful Asturian forests and nature on the other side… What could be better place for making such a project?

Christos Gkagkas (AEGEE-Patra): We had trainings on conflicts and different stereotypes, we learn how to recognize them and work on them in order to be able and overcome them. I think we manage to see that each culture is important and respectful.

Tereza: Adding to that in spite of this was a YIA project and we had non-AEGEE members we did not forget to show them all what AEGEE Spirit is.

Panagiotis: Which is why in the end, we left everyone speechless by our awesomeness.

What did you like about the event?

Panagiotis: In seven days we made friends from six different countries and learned about their culture, conflicts (internal, external), and language!

Christos: I liked most the conversations we had after the trainings, in which we found out that each culture is sharing something with other cultures and some of them are strongly connected.

Tereza: We had super great trainers. Every session was interesting and unique itself, even the ice-breaking games were amazing.

Gerardo: It was an awesome group of awesome people, and we had a really good time together.

Gerardo from Oviedo

In AEGEE we focus a lot on cultural exchanges and this was indeed one of those. Would you encourage others to take part/organise exchanges?

Tereza: As a person who has directly participated to such type of the project, I would not only encourage but, as the Vice-President and HR of my local, even officially suggest on the behalf of AEGEE-Yerevan to organise such exchanges as much as possible! Through such exchanges we are getting a quite unique chance not only to get familiar with other people’s culture, but also to represent ours.

Gerardo: There’s no better way to get to know other cultures and ways of thinking than actually living with people from other places and getting immersed in their stuff. Even that this event was short in time, lessons learnt will last forever.

Christos: I will give you one example. Before the event in Gijon I did not know where Armenia was but I fell in love with my Armenian friends and after this event I wanted to learn more about their ways of living so I applied and went to another YiA in Yerevan.

Panagiotis: For sure when you will come home after an event like this you will be a little different, more open minded.

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København

AEGEE- Utrecht has its very own local event committee: MestadCie (which translates to something like ‘my own little city’), which regularly organises local events that are not only fun, but also often have a deeper meaning behind them.

Maartje Natrop, President of the Mestadcie: “In this way, we keep members of our antenna entertained but also inform them about recent matters in Europe. We also pay attention to important themes of AEGEE-Europe, like social inclusion. Last week, we had a Visual Handicapped Night where we had blind food tastings and young, visually impaired speakers.”

In April the MestadCie organised a Smugglers game: an outdoor game that informed members about the work of the Visa Freedom Working Group (VFWG) in a fun way. On a warm spring evening, some members of AEGEE-Utrecht gathered in a big park in Utrecht and played a game that goes as follows: there is one ‘king’ who sits on his ‘throne’ – or in this case: spot in the grass – waiting for his subjects to bring him as much money as possible. These subjects have to pick up the money at check-points where the ‘writers’ are writing euro bills for them and deliver them to the king without getting caught. In the meanwhile, ‘customer service employees,’ or ‘boarder guardians’ if you will, have to try to stop them from getting to the king. If you get caught by a boarder guardian, you loose all your money.

The fun part of the game was of course running around in the park and feeling the excitement and the tension: ‘can we safely cross the boarder without being caught?’ Major doses of adrenaline, heart pumping and red cheeks where the physical product of this game.
In the end, all participants received flyers with information about the work of the VFWG and their contact information. The lesson that was remembered by all: it is not so easy to cross boarders for everybody, especially for people from Eastern European AEGEE locals.
In short, a night to remember: a lot of fun with a serious conclusion, typically AEGEE!

Written by Maartje Natrop, AEGEE-Utrecht

Remark by The AEGEEan: This article is republished in The AEGEEan with approval of the Eastern Partnership Project. 

“Such initiatives once again prove that AEGEE is not only about voting, candidates, and committees, but about people connected with each other and helping on a distance of thousands of kilometers.” This is what Olga Iatsyna, former Network Commissioner, wrote on her Facebook profile. We never thought otherwise!

The members of AEGEE-Poznań united their enthusiasm and willingness to promote the cultures of European countries and combined it with their mission to help. This is the motivation of the charity initiative “Serce dla Gruzji” (in Polish – “Heart for Georgia”). Consequently, a unique event was born: “AEGEE with Heart for Georgia”.

The main aim of the action is to show how many people need support and how we can contribute. During the last years, as a result of the wars and the political transformation in Georgia, a great part of its citizens were struck by many unexpected difficulties and suffering. The standard of living deteriorated for many people. Therefore, the purpose of this joint initiative of AEGEE-Poznań and “Heart for Georgia” is to show that there are people who support the children, the elderly, the poor,  and the sick and lonely. Thanks to the money collected, the local will be able to help an orphanage, a health centre for the poorest, a soup kitchen, and home care for those in need and for the handicapped who are no longer able to move from their homes.

Visiting Georgia during international projects showed me not only the beauty of the country and the immense hospitality of its citizens, but also revealed vast social needs. Last year, our group of volunteers from Poznań decided to start the initiative “Heart for Georgia”. Currently our actions are meant to support the already existing projects lead by Caritas Georgia. This organisation is widely known for its effectiveness. What is more, its employees recognise the needs of the people they have been taking care of for years. We believe that the money we fundraise is not going to waste, but will be used in the best way possible.

“As a former AEGEE member I have been in touch with its members for years and  I know very well that their enthusiasm can bring new ideas and energy to this project. I could not have been happier than in the moment I received the answer from AEGEE-Poznań and saw the support from AEGEE-Tbilisi and the Eastern Partnership Project (EaP),” says Ligia Szulc, the coordinator of the charity initiative “Heart for Georgia” and an officer of the Poznań City Hall.

“This project is undoubtedly unique. And what makes it this special? First of all, it is the aim: Helping those in need. Through our action we are able  to make a real difference in other people’s lives. Secondly, an incredible and very effective cooperation between two groups – AEGEE-Poznań and Heart for Georgia. I am very happy to be a part of this team. Together we can definitely achieve more,” says Marta Wnuk, coordinator of the Exchange Working Group in AEGEE-Poznań.

On 28^th May 2012, students of the universities in Poznań were encouraged to join, learn more, and contribute during the fundraising. To thank them for each offering, the sponsors of the event decided to give some fresh baked pastry which was distributed by the volunteering students. A Georgian culture evening in the Blue Note Jazz Club with music, Georgian cuisine, and interesting guests followed. Two music bands offered live concerts for the participants as an afterparty: the Polish band “Propaganda Dei” and “Bullit” from the United Kingdom.

The charity auction, supported by the biggest Polish auction portal Allegro.pl will last for a few days. All assets fundraised will be sent to partner of the initiative , Caritas Georgia.

“I do not regard the geographical border of Poland as the right criterion to choose which people we should help. Social aid is well-developed in Poland, while in Georgia it still is not,” says Paulina, one of the volunteers when asked why she decided to fundraise for the needy in Georgia.

Let us follow then our hearts and words “Some call it Europe, we call it home.”

Written by Ligia Szulc, Initiative Heart for Georgia and former AEGEE-Poznań, and Marta Wnuk, AEGEE-Poznań

Photographs by EaP and AEGEE-Tbilisi