Connect with us

Eastern Europe

Lithuania has made significant legislative reforms to fight foreign bribery

MD Staff

Published

on

Lithuania has taken significant steps to strengthen its legislative framework to combat foreign bribery. Yet further efforts are needed to ensure effective enforcement of anti-bribery laws with regard to corporate liability and imposing sanctions for foreign bribery, including confiscation, according to a new report by the OECD Working Group on Bribery. 

The 44-country OECD Working Group on Bribery has just completed its report on Lithuania’s implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and related instruments.

The Working Group made recommendations to improve Lithuania’s fight against foreign bribery, including:

  • Train investigators and prosecutors on confiscation, and take steps to ensure that law enforcement authorities and prosecutors routinely seek confiscation in foreign bribery cases;
  • Ensure that Lithuania’s Special Investigations Service is adequately resourced to carry out foreign bribery investigations;
  • Strengthen frameworks to detect, investigate and prosecute foreign bribery-based money laundering; and
  • Improve efforts by relevant supervisory authorities and professional associations to raise awareness of the need to detect and report the foreign bribery offence.

The report also notes a number of positive developments, such as the enactment of a comprehensive, standalone whistleblower protection legislation that will enter into force on 1 January 2019, and significant reforms to Lithuania’s anti-money laundering legislation, as well as its criminal sanctions framework, increasing the maximum available sanctions for natural and legal persons for foreign bribery. The report recognises the extensive awareness-raising efforts by Lithuania’s Special Investigations Service in the public and private sectors. Lithuania also has two ongoing criminal investigations for the foreign bribery offence. The Working Group will follow-up on the practice of prosecutors and judges in respectively seeking and imposing fines in foreign bribery cases to ensure that these are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

The Working Group on Bribery – made up of the 35 OECD Member countries plus Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Lithuania, Peru, Russia and South Africa – adopted Lithuania’s report in its second phase of monitoring implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The Report, available here, lists all of the recommendations of the Working Group to Lithuania on pages [77-80], and includes an overview of recent enforcement actions and specific legal, policy and institutional features of Lithuania’s framework to fight foreign bribery.

Lithuania will provide an oral follow-up report to the Working Group on its implementation of certain recommendations by December 2018. It will further submit a written follow-up report by December 2019 on steps it has taken to implement all of the recommendations. This report will be publicly available.

Continue Reading
Comments

Eastern Europe

South Caucasus’ Role will be overshadowed by the US-Russia Competition Elsewhere in Eurasia

Published

on

Recent geopolitical developments in Eurasia indicate that the South Caucasus’ relative importance could be overshadowed by West-Russia competition over Belarus, Ukraine and Central Asia. This trend was quite visible during Mike Pompeo’s visit to Belarus, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan which laid out the US administration’s priorities in the former Soviet Union for 2020 and well into 2021. Yet another reason for the South Caucasus’ ambiguous position is Russia’s growing concern with Minsk and Kyiv in the west and Tashkent’s maneuvers to eschew to Moscow’s attempts to expand its influence over these geographically and economically important states. 

The South Caucasus plays an important role in the US/EU’s strategic calculus. One of the biggest imperatives of since the breakup of the Soviet Union was to enable newly independent Georgia and Azerbaijan to use their geographic position as a nodal point in the nascent South Caucasus energy and transport corridor. For the West the effectiveness of the South Caucasus corridor would potentially underpin a much bigger project, the Trans-Caspian Corridor (consisting of a pipeline, intensive port-to-port contacts, etc.), which, though still only an idea with some minor success (successful division of the Caspian seabed among the littoral states reached in August, 2018), but could, under altered circumstances, become a geopolitical reality.

All these initiatives inevitably increase the South Caucasus’ independence against Russian (old Soviet) transportation networks as the Caspian Sea oil and gas resources open up to the West.

Though important geopolitically, many politicians and analysts in the South Caucasus at times tend to overemphasize the role the region plays in the West’s and Russia’s foreign policy. In fact, what various recent political and economic trends in the region show is that major geopolitical battle grounds will be opening up elsewhere in Eurasia far beyond the South Caucasus.

A partial reason for this is Russia whose geopolitical attention since 2014 has been primarily diverted to the Ukraine crisis. Moreover, for the past year or so, Moscow increased its efforts in other directions. In relations with Belarus, which has traditionally pursued a pro-Russian policy, Russia raises the ante by reportedly demanding the territorial, economic and military merger as a part of the agreement signed between Minsk and Moscow in December 1999. As Belarus successfully resists Moscow’s efforts, it is likely that the Kremlin’s moves to influence Belarus will continue to grow in 2020-2021. Another central issue will be Ukraine, where Moscow and Kyiv have reached some understanding on the need to de-escalate the situation in Donbas and find a long-term solution to the problem. 

Another region which will be an active theater of Russian diplomatic and economic moves is Central Asia. There, Uzbekistan with its industrial and political might and resting on a fertile Fergana Valley and bordering on four other Central Asian states, the country is a key to Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions. Various reports emerged throughout 2019 indicating that Moscow was in active negotiations with Tashkent to have it join the Eurasian Economic Union. There are also indications that Tashkent is resisting the idea and the probability is, at least from the open source material, that Uzbekistan will join EEU as an observer.

This regional context is important to understand the evolving importance of the South Caucasus for 2020-2021. Belarus and Uzbekistan (on top of Ukraine) represent those focal points in the Eurasian landmass where the US’ and to a lesser degree the EU’s attention will drawn to. Indeed, during his recent visit Mike Pompeo did not tour the South Caucasus, but visited Belarus, Ukraine and the Central Asian region (specifically Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan) to increase western efforts in battling Russian initiatives. The visit was followed by the publication of a new US strategy document for Central Asia further indicating a growing role of the region in the western perspective.

These long-term trends show that Russia’s large political and economic moves are not expected in the South Caucasus. The situation in the region remains complex, but it nevertheless is relatively stable as Russian military and economic presence is predominant. Moscow has reached a certain limit to its power in Georgia, where through Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region, it successfully prevents Tbilisi from becoming a NATO/EU member. In Armenia too, which is Russia’s closest ally in the region, Moscow achieved its primary geopolitical goals through the stationing of its troops as well as buying Armenia’s strategic infrastructure capabilities. This is while Azerbaijan tries to pursue a balanced, one might even call an independent foreign policy based on its large revenues and influence from oil and gas trade as well as strategic position at the Caspian Sea. However, as long as Baku has an unresolved problem of Nagorno Karabakh, Russia is not particularly worried about Azerbaijan’s geopolitical goals.

This creates an interesting geopolitical picture in the South Caucasus when Russia is unlikely to make any particularly ambitious moves as its vital interests are secured for the foreseeable future. Hence, Moscow’s larger economic and political attention will be drawn to other regions such as Belarus, Ukraine and Central Asia.

The South Caucasus’ relative inconspicuousness in regional geopolitics was also well apparent in the Iran crisis which broke out this January following the general Qasem Soleimani’s killing in Baghdad. Geographically bordering on Iran, it was expected by many in the analytical community that the Soleimani crisis could increase the US/EU interests in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, compared to the western attention paid to Iraq, Persian Gulf or Afghanistan amid the Iran-US confrontation, there was little similarity in the US/EU thinking regarding the South Caucasus.

Surely, this is not to say that the South Caucasus’ importance declines in the Eurasian affairs. The region remains an important transit corridor connecting the Black and Caspian Sea. Moreover, it also connects Central Asia to Eastern Europe and serves for Russia as a connection point with the volatile Middle East. These basic geopolitics will keep the South Caucasus crucial to the regional players.

However, when compared to other regions across the Eurasian landmass which, as we argued above, are bound to be geopolitically active, it is clear that for the West and Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Central Asia will of bigger importance for the rest of 2020 and well into 2021. There is too much economically at stake in these aforementioned regions. Since Russia’s interests in the South Caucasus are well-preserved for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely to expect any significant political and military moves from Moscow.

Author’s note: first published in Caucasus Watch

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Defeat of Azerbaijan Began in Khojaly, Nagorno-Karabakh

Published

on

Azerbaijanis and their PR supporters will begin their yearly media blitz about events that took place in the town of Khojaly in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh in February 1992. It was in Nagorno-Karabakh where the indigenous Armenians fought the Azerbaijani Army. We will read that events in Khojaly were genocide with victims lacking justice as handed out at  Nuremberg. These two claims are an insult to the term genocide and the judgments at Nuremberg. Justice does not begin with falsifying events, selectively deleting massive amounts of information, and using the calamity at Khojaly to convince the world and an otherwise defeated Azerbaijani state that Armenians are barbarians. Let’s look at the record.

First, nobody would have died on either side if Azerbaijan didn’t base its emerging national ethos on the expulsion of Armenians from within the borders granted them jurisdiction by Joseph Stalin.

Second, 90% of Stepanakert, the regional capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, was destroyed mainly from indiscriminate shelling from Khojaly. Azerbaijan had to assume Khojaly was a lead target needing neutralizing.

Third, by February 1992, shelling from Khojaly had killed over 30 members of the Russian 366 Mountain Rifle group stationed in Stepanakert. The Azerbaijanis must have known this military detachment would eventually retaliate.

Fourth, when Armenians finally reached Khojaly and ended the shelling, for a week, Armenians publicly announced on megaphones, radio, and TV, to the civilian population to get out as a final battle was clearly in the works. However, the Azerbaijani military did what it could to prevent civilians from leaving Khojaly.  During a last-minute exit of Azerbaijani civilians,  using a corridor created by Armenian fighters, shooting began between Azerbaijani soldiers and Armenians, after which many, on the order of a hundred or so Azerbaijani civilians, were killed. Their names registered in human rights reports. Within weeks, that number began to rise until it was assumed 600+ was good enough.  Azerbaijanis never make mention of Armenian losses.

The defeat of Khojaly forced from office then Azerbaijani President Mutalibov. Mutalibov describes the Azerbaijani political engineering of events at Khojaly in an interview with Czech reporter Dana Mazalova in the April 2 issue of Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper.  Of course, several years after this interview and reiterated earlier this month, Mutalibov claimed he never made such statements, even though the papers exist.

Within hours of the deaths in Khojaly, the famous Azerbaijani video journalist Chingiz Mustafayev recorded the destruction. Four days later, Mustafayev returned and found many of these bodies moved from Khojaly to many km inside the Azerbaijani side of the contact line. Mustafayev videoed these same bodies postmortem mutilated, surrounded by Azerbaijani soldiers. Some reporters recognized the earlier Khojaly bodies subsequently mutilated. Azerbaijan claims Armenians hacked up the victims, yet all show wounds that hadn’t bled. Dead bodies don’t bleed. Two months later, Mustafayev lost his life under mysterious circumstances. Mustafeyev’s second film was kept under strict censorship by Azerbaijan until 2017 when Chingiz Mustafayev’s brother Vahid, released the film after Azerbaijani authorities closed down his TV station in Baku.

Azerbaijanis provide “photos of Khojaly,” which included photos of mothers grieving over dead children, but they were photos from a 1980s-era earthquake in Erzerum, Turkey. Periodically, Azerbaijan would present what they claim as photographic evidence of events in Khojaly. As an example, Azerbaijan took previously color photos from the mid-1990s carnage in Yugoslavia, made them into black and white, and claimed they were bodies from the events in Khojaly in 1992. Last year’s Azerbaijani “Khojaly commemoration” in Iran had a photograph from the 1915 Turkish genocide of the Armenians, claiming it was from in Khojaly in 1992. That photo is in the US National Archives. If events in Khojaly were so evident, Azerbaijan would not have to plagiarize evidence.

Less than two months after the Khojaly event, early morning on April 10, 1992, Azerbaijani soldiers captured the peaceful Armenian village of Maragha. The soldiers murdered, hacked up, and burnt alive nearly 100 Armenian civilians. Azerbaijanis have forgotten this act of premeditated barbarism.

Azerbaijan failed to thoroughly cleanse Armenians that were placed under their jurisdiction by Joseph Stalin, demonstrated by sovereignty exercised by the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh today. Azerbaijanis continue to use the term genocide to describe events in Khojaly to a world audience that has been fed a story with most of the facts deleted and others manufactured.

For more facts associated with this event, see March 6, 2017, Times of Israel article “Genocides that Never Were: Jenin, West Bank, and Khojaly, Nagorno-Karabakh.”

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Ten reasons why joining the EAEU could be beneficial for Azerbaijan

Published

on

Azerbaijan joining the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) could reduce the costs of imported intermediate goods for the Azerbaijani industry, increase exports of the agricultural and non-oil sectors of the republic by USD 280 million, improve the working and living conditions of Azerbaijani labor migrants and create favorable conditions for attracting foreign direct investment . As a result, Azerbaijan’s GDP could be 0.6% higher than it is now.The Eurasian Economic Union is primarily a customs union and the desire to create common markets for the free movement of goods, services, labor, capital and digital data. In addition, the EAEU is in the process of forming an extensive network of free trade areas around the world. Accordingly, it would be necessary to analyze the possible difficulties and likely benefits of closer cooperation between Azerbaijan and the EAEU in all of these areas.According to a survey conducted by the Analytical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation in the summer of 2018, almost 40% of the business community in Azerbaijan would welcome closer trade and economic relations between the republic and the Eurasian Union.

Commodity Market

In the beginning, it must be recognized that in foreign trade the republic does not depend on the EAEU as a buyer of Azerbaijani products. Only 2% of its exports go to the countries of the Eurasian Union. However, the point is not that the voluminous Eurasian market of 184 million people is not interesting for Azerbaijani entrepreneurs, but in Azerbaijan’s overwhelming focus on the sale of mineral products, which make up almost 95% of the republic’s export. With such an export structure, it certainly competes with the EAEU, where oil and gas also make up almost 63% of supplies to foreign markets. It is not surprising that the composition of Azerbaijani exports corresponds to the structure of the EAEU import by only 7%. For comparison, in Uzbekistan and the EAEU, the index of trade complementarity is 36%.But this is not so bad either. Firstly, large flows of mutual trade are desirable for regional economic integration, but not necessary. In such integration associations as MERCOSUR and USMECA, the share of mutual trade in the entire trade of the bloc is only 14-16%. The EAEU falls into this category. At the same time, creating one’s own regional market for the sale of non-commodity goods is an important step towards getting rid of the “oil curse”.

This was one of the important reasons that led Russia and Kazakhstan to integration. What can really become a regional market for potential sales of non-raw materials for Baku? The Middle East, on the one hand, and the post-Soviet space, on the other. This is the first argument in favor of the EAEU.By the way, since October 2019, the EAEU has a free trade area with Iran. Now, Armenia as well has a preferential access to the Iranian market. And due to the combined weight of the “Eurasian” market, the conditions that were agreed upon during the negotiations between the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) and Tehran are much more beneficial for Armenia than if Yerevan would have held negotiations in a bilateral format. This is the second argument why participation in the EAEU could be interesting for Baku – to improve its negotiating position with respect to third parties. In the near future, the EEC plans to sign FTA agreements with Egypt and India. And this is only southward.Secondly, 20% of all imports to Azerbaijan come from the EAEU countries. This is a significant amount. Many people think that participation in integration associations is necessary only so that their country can export better and more to such an enlarged market. But this is actually only half the question.

Trade liberalization within the framework of a regional integration bloc also helps to improve the quality of imported goods and make them cheaper. After all, producing everything by oneself is simply ineffective. As a result, both households and national businesses benefit from better and cheaper imports.The EAEU’ export structure corresponds to the Azerbaijani import structure by 38%, which is quite a lot. In 2018, the three main goods imported from the EAEU into the republic were: metal products for USD 325 million (14.5% of all imports from the EAEU), timber for USD 268 (12%), and grain for USD 225 million (10%). The first two are semi-finished products, the third is a raw material. That is, with a hypothetical entry into the EAEU, Azerbaijan in principle would abolish its import duties on these goods. Consequently, this import will become cheaper for the further processing by Azerbaijani enterprises, which means an increase in the profit of the national businesses, and, possibly, cheaper products for the final consumer. This is the third argument in favor of the EAEU.The fourth argument in favor of Eurasian integration is that it would open up significant opportunities for increasing Azerbaijani exports to the Eurasian market. Using a gravity model to assess export potential (Decreux et al. 2016), we can estimate that, upon joining the EAEU, Azerbaijan’s exports to the Union’s common market could increase by USD 251 million, which is equivalent to an increase in Azerbaijan’s GDP by 0.5%. In this case, the total exports to the EAEU member countries would be almost 4% of the republic’s world exports. Conventionally, from the entry of the republic into the EAEU, every Azerbaijani would become richer by USD 25 thousand.

Compared to the scenario without integration, Azerbaijan’s exports to Armenia could increase on average by 107%, to Belarus by 154%, to Kazakhstan by 161%, to Kyrgyzstan by 121%, to Russia by 44% and to the EAEU as a whole by half.Azerbaijani tomatoes and fruits have the greatest export potential. Becoming member of the Union, additional deliveries of only tomatoes from Azerbaijan to the markets and supermarkets of the EAEU may amount to USD 101 million.But this is not all. As already mentioned, the EAEU has free trade agreements with Serbia, Iran, Vietnam and Singapore. By 2025 (most likely much earlier), FTAs with India, Israel and Egypt will be concluded. Upon joining the EAEU, Azerbaijan would gain free access to these markets, which could lead to an increase in exports to them by USD 28 million additionally. Thus is the fifth argument for the EAEU.Thus, in total, upon joining the Eurasian Economic Union, Azerbaijan’s GDP could be 0.6% higher and every Azerbaijanian could be USD 28 thousand richer than without joining. To be correct, it should be noted that the above estimates are quite preliminary and do not take into account possible negative effects due to a possible increase in the average tariff protection of the republic in relation to third parties by 2.2% to the customs union level. At the same time, the final positive effects may be even higher, because this model does not take into account the multiplicative intersectoral effect in the economy, i.e., how the above-mentioned increase in exports can lead to an increase in demand for goods and services of indirect sectors.

Transit

The largest and well-known transport and infrastructure project, which is of interest to Baku, is the North-South International Transit Corridor (“Spice Way”) project. This railway freight corridor should connect the northwestern part of the EAEU with India, with which the EEC plans to sign an agreement on a free trade area, through Iran, with which the Union already has a free trade agreement. Geographically, Azerbaijan would be ideally located in order to become the central link on this route. The volume of potential cargo flows within the North-South corridor is estimated at 20 million tons per year. However, non-participation of the republic in the CIS free trade area and non-membership in the EAEU have so far been one of the main factors restraining the break-even feasibility of such a corridor.Along with this, work is underway within the EAEU to create a single transport space. In fact this means that domestic tariffs for the railway transportation of goods have already been unified. Concurrently, the EAEU member states are also negotiating the introduction of a unified transit tariff. The effects are already evident: for the period from 2014 to 2018, railway freight turnover (measured in ton-kilometers) inside the EAEU grew by almost 3% on average annually, while in Azerbaijan it fell by 11.5% on average every year. This is the sixth argument: Azerbaijan could significantly benefit from its geographical position by becoming a member of the EAEU’s unified transport space.

Labor market

The success of the EAEU was most pronounced in creating the single labor market. All citizens of member states are free to move and work throughout the territory of the Eurasian Economic Union. Everyone enjoys the same labor and social rights, including: hiring in most professions without additional documents and permits; mutual recognition of most educational certificates; tax and pension residency; free basic health insurance – including all family members; free education (from kindergarten to university) – including all family members. Therefore, the seventh argument is: as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, Azerbaijani citizens who come to work in the other member states of the Union will receive the same preferences as the citizens from all the other member states.The effect of creating a single labor market is noticeable: the annual growth rates of money transfers of individuals from Russia to the EAEU countries in 2015-2018 were on average one and a half times higher than such transfers to Azerbaijan. Over the past five years, about 25 thousand Azerbaijani citizens arrived annually in Russia. Most came for work. Their remittances amounted to USD 800 million on average annually.

Direct investments

Foreign direct investment regulation is not directly assigned to the supranational level of the EAEU and is not within the powers of the EEC. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that regional economic integration within the Union created relatively more favorable conditions in this area. So, due to the economic crisis as a whole, direct investments from Russia to the countries of the post-Soviet space fell in 2015-2018. However, they fell to the EAEU member states on average 15 times less than the annual average than Russian FDI to other CIS countries. Over this period, Russian FDI in Azerbaijan amounted to USD 27.5 million on average annually. Thus, the eighth argument is: joining the Eurasian Economic Union can create more favorable conditions for attracting Eurasian investments to the republic.By the way, Azerbaijan could also consider becoming a member of the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) and the Eurasian Fund for Stabilization and Development (EFSD). The terms of participation, most likely, could be similar to the terms of participation of Belarus, which has a similar level of GDP by PPP as Azerbaijan: USD 189 billion and USD 179 billion, respectively. Having contributed 1% (USD 70 million) to the bank’s charter capital (USD 7 billion), Belarus receives almost 14% of funds (USD 1.2 billion) from the total investment portfolio of the bank (USD 8.9 billion). And having contributed 0.1% (USD 10 million) to the fund’s total funds (total USD 8.5 billion), Minsk can claim 21% (USD 1.8 billion) of these funds in the form of loans and grants. The portfolio volume, taking into account the implemented and ongoing EFSD projects in the Republic of Belarus, amounted to USD 4.6 billion by the beginning of 2020. The EDB provides investments at preferential rates for infrastructure projects mainly in the fields of energy, transport, industry and agrobusiness. The EFSD aims to support macroeconomic stability and long-term economic development. The main “donors” in both development institutions are Russia and Kazakhstan (EDB: 66% and 33%; EFSD 88% and 11%). Profitable investment and financial support from the EDB and the EFSD is the ninth argument in favor of Baku’s potential Eurasian orientation.

National sovereignty

Upon joining the Union, Azerbaijan’s GDP would be 4% of the total economy of the EAEU, and its population – 5% of the total population of the integration bloc. In such an enlarged Union the Russian Federation would still make up 81% of its GDP and 76% of the population of the Union. At the same time, the combined economic and demographic weight of other member states would expand to 19% and 24%, respectively. Thus, in 2018 terms, GDP at purchasing power parity of such an expanded EAEU would ammount to USD 4.9 trillion, its population – to 194 million people.But this is actually not so important. Unlike what populist propaganda insists on, the EAEU’s bodies and decision-making mechanism are built on a democratic basis. All decisions between the member states must be made by consensus, and each member state has one vote, regardless of economic weight or population size.Not Vladimir Putin, but Nursultan Nazarbayev as the first of the post-Soviet statesmen proposed in 1994 to create the Eurasian Union. In his opinion, the new Union should be based on new principles: the priority of economic benefits over political considerations, the preservation of national sovereignty, voluntary and gradual integration, non-interference in the internal political system of member states. That is the wording which is now enshrined in the Treaty on the EAEU.

Unlike the EU, the EAEU integration agenda and the powers of its Eurasian Economic Commission are limited exclusively to economic issues. The Eurasian Economic Union does not pursue a “value policy” and does not intervene in the internal political system of its member states. David Lane, a researcher at Cambridge University, wrote the following about this: “The Eurasian Economic Union creates horizontal democratic conditions between its member states, while the European Union, at its discretion, prescribes” democratization “within states.”Based on WTO rules and the European integration experience, the EAEU seeks to create greater legitimacy, better conditions for a liberal market economy and strict multilateral “rules of the game”, which all member states, including Moscow, must adhere to. And despite periodic exceptions and barriers, in terms of institutional integration and the formation of common markets, the EAEU is now in second place after the European Union, ahead of such associations as MERCOSUR and ASEAN.By the way, the headquarters of the EEC does not resemble an old-fashioned Soviet ministry, but a modern office of some international consulting firm. In such an atmosphere, the EEC is constantly trying to implement best practices and standards from around the globe. In addition, the EAEU Court, which is located in Minsk, works pretty well and has already made a number of important cases against Russian actors and in favor of supranational law, for example, according to which EAEU sportsmen cannot be considered as foreign legionnaires. For the first time in the history of Eurasia, the Eurasian integration project is the first fully peaceful, voluntary, formally democratic, equal and market-oriented association of countries and peoples of the region. The goals, structure and decision-making mechanism in the EAEU are the tenth argument why Azerbaijan should consider joining the Eurasian Economic Union.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Newsdesk26 mins ago

ADB Approves CNY130 Million Private Sector Loan to Support Coronavirus Response in China

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) today signed an agreement for a private sector loan of up to CNY130 million ($18.6...

South Asia2 hours ago

Similarities between Trump-Modi Policies and their Actions

President Donald Trump calls PM Narendra Modi the father of India; according to him he has been successful in combining...

Eastern Europe4 hours ago

South Caucasus’ Role will be overshadowed by the US-Russia Competition Elsewhere in Eurasia

Recent geopolitical developments in Eurasia indicate that the South Caucasus’ relative importance could be overshadowed by West-Russia competition over Belarus,...

Reports6 hours ago

Uganda Can Create Higher Labor Productivity Jobs by Improving Trade and Business Environment

Uganda’s economy needs to gradually create more jobs for its fast-growing and youth population. To accelerate economic growth and drive...

Hotels & Resorts8 hours ago

Hyatt Expands Presence in Turkey with Plans for Hyatt Regency Izmir Istinye Park

Hyatt Hotels Corporation announced today that a Hyatt affiliate has entered into a franchise agreement with Orjin Konaklama Yönetim Hizmetleri...

Europe10 hours ago

‘Westlessness’: Shaping Anew the EU’s Power

The endurance of a political order cannot be permanently measured in the absence of any instrument, neither can it be...

EU Politics13 hours ago

Future EU-UK Partnership: Q&A on the negotiating directives

What has the Council adopted today? The General Affairs Council has today adopted a decision, as expected, to authorise the...

Trending