During this meeting, Azerbaijan handed over the BSEC term presidency to Bulgaria. In addition to Davutoğlu, the Bulgarian foreign minister, Moldova’s state minister and the Russian, Albanian, Greek, Georgian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Serbian and Armenian deputy foreign ministers attended the meeting. After the meeting, the BSEC Troika held a joint press conference.
Due to Azerbaijan’s reaction to the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, the Baku meeting of the BSEC could not touch on serious matters. The most important issue discussed at the meeting was to agree on using BSEC transition certificates instead ordinary transition documents for semi-trailers. Turkey, Moldova, Armenia, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia and Albania lent support to the use of the BSEC transition certificates while Bulgaria, Romania and Azerbaijan expressed that they would give external support to the use of the certificate in question. Russia and Greece opposed the BSEC transition certificates.
Taking over the term presidency of the BSEC on May 1, 2009, Azerbaijan was late to send the presidency’s letter of priorities to the member states, and in that letter, he accused the BSEC of having a flawed basic philosophy. Baku suggested that political disputes should be settled within the BSEC without consulting the member countries, which would require a fundamental change. This move triggered criticisms from almost all member countries except Georgia and Ukraine. Moreover, Baku was criticized for not distributing the BSEC activities equally among member countries, of failing to conclude only a very few of the total 62 activities so far, of leaving the implementation of activities mostly to September and October and of not specifying dates for most of them. Despite these accusations, it should be noted that Azerbaijan has been working to make sure that the BSEC constantly improves. Baku saw the large Black Sea as an important region and wanted to see the BSEC as a more capable and pro-active organization. Azerbaijan had always stated that the BSEC should evolve into an organization that can better cope with existing problems, and it is sure that it can be more effective than it is now and that it has visions concerning the BSEC. I emphasized that extra efforts are needed to make the BSEC more effective.
Baku demonstrated that in order to make the BSEC more active in the region, its future should be addressed. However, if the future of the BSEC is to be addressed, it may not be proper to do this at a conference. It would be better to handle this issue through other formats such as employing a group of wise men. Indeed, in the BSEC foreign ministers’ meeting held in Tirana in 2008, a certificate of rules for improving the effectiveness of the BSEC was adopted, and it was agreed that this matter should be discussed during the organizational matters workshop meeting. However, in addition to amending the founding agreements of the BSEC, other methods should be employed as well for improving the effectiveness of the BSEC. For example, the BSEC Secretariat should be strengthened. A more proactive role may be given to the Secretariat. The Secretariat should act as a more superior organ. The workgroups operating dispersedly should be coordinated by the Secretariat. The Secretariat may assume the country coordinator roles in the BSEC working groups with increased effectiveness.
In the final analysis, the BSEC has managed to survive for 17 years. For the future, the BSEC is still needed for boosting cooperation in the region. It would be more appropriate to implement new mechanisms to strengthen the BSEC instead of searching for organizations as alternatives to it.
