BACKGROUND: Uzbekistan officially notified its decision to withdraw from GUUAM on May 5, 2005. This move could have been anticipated a long time ago. Uzbekistan was not very involved in GUUAM activities and the growing repression in the country definitely diverged with the popular and pacific revolutions that took place in other member states, most obviously Georgia and Ukraine. But the case of Azerbaijan also diverged strongly with Uzbekistan in terms of general freedoms and the transparency of elections. Nevertheless, democracy does not seem to strengthen remarkably in Azerbaijan, and the media and the opposition are regularly confronted with pressures from authorities. The upcoming November 6 parliamentary elections will indicate whether Azerbaijan will move more significantly toward democracy. For the time being, in “Western GUUAM”, the new Ukrainian and Georgian leaders are showing little progress in the fight against corruption despite high hopes raised by the rose and orange revolutions. On the contrary, they seem to exhibit signs of early fatigue, raising skepticism and disillusion among supporters. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, after being in power for about half a year, dismissed his entire cabinet because of growing evidence of corrupt practices. He even accused his former Prime Minister, Yulia Timoshenko, of using political power for personal gain. The funding of his electoral campaign is also a source of concern. In Georgia, President Mikheil Saakashvili’s firm stance against corruption seems to have faltered, and as indicated by recent statements from journalists and political opponents, he is being accused of trying to impose restrictions on basic freedoms. Whether real or perceived, such alarming developments require more vigilance and reactions from the international community, the West in particular, to help strengthen democracy and civil society in these countries. Realism and pragmatism must prevail. In particular, emerging international relations and groupings should be fully exploited to support new initiatives to improve governance and raise transparency. In that context, the planned creation of the Commonwealth of Democratic Choice by the leaders of Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and Georgia, and possible follow-ups, might create very unique opportunities for far reaching cooperation between new EU members and CIS states, far beyond mere political statements. While initially limited to two states from each group, this could be only the beginning.

IMPLICATIONS: Poland and Lithuania can be considered interesting case studies in the fight against corruption. As indicated by international experts, Poland is a country where the corruption levels have fallen substantially after radical measures were taken. The fight against corruption in Poland is supported by the World Bank, which helped develop a strong anti-corruption program that is built on two major pillars: a high-level group reuniting leading political figures and civil society, with assistance provided to a series of key NGOs. Lithuania has also adopted new laws and created a powerful and independent body, the Special Investigations Services (SIS) at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which focuses on the linkages between organized crime and corrupt practices. In that respect, much importance is given to international criminal organizations operating in EU countries and in former Soviet Republics. These two countries now belong to the EU, which represents a formidable “nominal anchor” for the adoption of modern legislation, the promotion of good governance, democracy and human rights. Moreover, they are NATO members, which supports transparent practices in defense budgetary matters and the civilian control over the military. The forthcoming CDC might be unique because it links new EU members with substantial experience in terms of successful political and economic reforms and former Soviet countries, members of the CIS that are still confronted with numerous challenges to consolidate their democratic regimes and develop their economies. Such a mix of countries could help initiate joint programs and projects to improve governance in the lagging countries, namely Georgia and Ukraine, relying on the experience of the leading countries, Lithuania and Poland. Twinning between countries that are to some extent comparable in size and share some common legacies would make sense – Poland with Ukraine, Lithuania with Georgia. Anti-corruption activities could be developed, using the combined resources of the twinned countries, with external support from other countries, including the U.S., International Organizations such as the UNDP, and Financial Institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and EBRD. That would allow moving much closer to zero-tolerance policies regarding corruption. Poland is also hosting a “branch” of the Belgian-based College of Europe, which educates future cadres in new EU member countries, giving priority to governance matters. Such an institution could also focus on the training of future Ukrainian, Georgian, and perhaps other states’ political leaders and high-level civil servants.

CONCLUSIONS: The signing by four countries of the basic documents founding the CDC is expected to take place this fall at a summit in Ukraine where the U.S., the EU and Russia are to be invited as observers. The new organization is generally seen as a political one with the aim of promoting democratic values, as indicated by its name. This may definitely help both Georgia and Ukraine, i.e. countries in which corruption is quite resilient. It should be made clear that genuine democracies, in these countries and elsewhere, cannot develop with pervasive and high corruption levels. For that reason, CDC will become a meaningful organization if it helps to develop effective cooperation for combating corruption and enhance the quality of governance, which underlines that the organization must be both inward- and outward-looking. Success stories could allow CDC to expand in size and depth, bringing more countries closer to Western norms of democracy, freedoms and human rights.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Daniel Linotte earned his D.Phil. at Oxford University (St. Anthony’s College). He worked for more than four years as senior economic adviser to the OSCE Secretariat. Before joining the OSCE, he was senior adviser on trade issues in Georgia. He is now working in the Balkans, supporting the process of WTO accession within a major EU-funded project in coordination with USAID. The views are those of the author only and do not represent an official position.