Partnership or closed club?
One of the brick-set causes is the fact that the British people got tired of fighting with bulky and clumsy bureaucracy of the European Commission. EaP Civil Society Forum is a great example of how a good idea could got stuck in a quagmire. We have already spoken about the results of EaP CSF conference in Riga (http://www.west-east-fund.com/index.php/en/news/48-eastern-partnership-civil-society-forum-or-give-us-some-water-as-we-are-so-hungry-that-don-t-have-no-place-to-sleep). Unfortunately, 7th EaP CSFAnnual Assembly in Kyiv developed more questions rather than provided the participants with answers. The main paradox is that The Steering Committee EaP CSF has the same authority as the Belorussian president Lukashenko. Only the Steering Committee knows which EU organizations sent the application forms to participate in the next EaP CSF Annual Assembly and only Steering Committee decides what organizations are to be accepted or rejected. EaP CSF National Platforms have the right to recommend the organizations representing their countries at the EaP CSF Annual Assembly. We would like to remind that the participation in EaP CSF Annual Assembly gives the right for the organization to become a member of EaP CSF. Thus, even though the EU organization got the membership of EaP CSF to receive the information about other EU members, addresses and e-mails in particular, is impossible. This is a secret under lock and key. So, even when the EU Organization got the membership of EaP CSF it is still very restricted in its opportunities to influence anything. Such organizations have