Wed 26 Nov 2008
conversatie cu un ministru de externe
Posted by nicu under cfsp/enp , relatii internationale , ue-caucaz , ue-moldova , ue-rusia[6] Comments
catva timp in urma am fost la un pranz cu un ministru de externe din UE (cu inca vreo 10 jurnalisti si cercetatori). e mai bine sa prezint mai jos ideile lui, decat sa dau numele (nu le pot face pe ambele). regulile chatham house. deci iata cateva idei/citate culese din aceasta conversatie. mai adaug ca ministrul este oarecum pe centru in ce priveste atitudinile fata de rusia. nu este nici anti-rus, nici pro-rus. deci nici baltic, nici cipriot :) despre Rusia, parteneriatul estic, obama, tratatul de securitate europeana promovat de medvedev, etc.
- 3 dates shaped the post-Cold war world. 1) fall of the Berlin wall. 2) 9/11 3) 08.08.08 (war in Georgia) and then the start of the financial crisis with the fall of Lehman Brothers.
- There is a remarkable correlation between oil prices and Russia/Soviet foreign policy. The higher the price, the harsher the foreign policy. That’s been the case since 1973. oil was 150 USD a few months and is 60 these days.
- EU-Russia relations – extremely asymmetrical. We are too focused on energy. That’s a huge mistake. In reality the EU economy is 15 times bigger, defence spending 7 times bigger and population is 3 times bigger (quoting the ECFR EU-Russia power audit). We are a much much bigger player than Russia.
- ECFR published a report by Pierre Noel. Excellent study. Russian gas is only 6.5% of our energy needs.
- Medvedev proposals: We have to listen but postpone. The OSCE is the best institution for that. Russia wants to focus exclusively on security. The Russian agenda is to 1) split the EU, 2) push NATO out, 3) keep the US at bay. 4) keep nation states as the main actors in Eur security. We need to put the discussion with Russia on a long track.
- Financial crisis: outdated national responses to global problems.
- Lisbon ratification: Next December Council will give Ireland some guarantees. 1) neutrality, 2) taxes, 3) one commissioner.
- Post Georgia – a boost to EU enlargement. Only Fr and Germany against Turkey. But ultimately the case for enlargement is strengthened. Also to the Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine. No one questions that.
Q and A
- Russian military operation in Georgia – one of the few, if not only successful Russian military operation after World War 2.
- Russia did two simulations of a war with Georgia this summer.
- Medvedev didn’t want that war. No president wants a war in the first 100 days.
- Stupid, strategic mistake by Georgia to start the war. We all knew from day one how it started.
- Clear that Russia is pushing for a sphere of influence. It was stupid of them to recognise Ab and SO following their Kosovo fetish.
- Not convinced Medvedev is entirely irrelevant and Putin is fully in charge. Putin maybe does not want to stay, were it not for his assets.
- Very critical of Poland- Lit on the agreement with Russia.
- it is key is to make Russia as European as possible.
- 3 key issues of the new EU-Russia agreement: energy, visa freedom and free trade area.
- Ukr might join. It is a questions of 10-15 years. We recognised in septemeber that they are a European country, and read art 49 which says that any European state can apply for EU.
- Difference Kosovo – Abk and SO. We tried to find a status for Kosovo for 8 years. Russia recognized them in a few days without even trying to discuss their status. Russia made a mess for itself. Chechnya in the future. It is their problem.
- the second round of Geneva talks on Georgia were good.
- The Eastern Partnership is there because we want to tone down the sphere of influence talk by Russia. I like the concept but we need more beef on the bones. so far not enough.
- The OSCE December ministerial. Two issues: the security treaty idea + Georgia. There will also be two regional declarations – one on Moldova/Transnistria, one on Nagorno-Karabakh.
- Russian vision of the security treaty – is drop two baskets (human rights and economics) and focus on hard security. this is not ok for us.
- Steinmeier – very good but too preoccupied with the elections and domestic politics.
- One journalist is asking why no one digs into the dirty business of Cyprus and Russia etc. response is “the media bang about Bulgaria and Romania as corrupt crooks, but Cyprus is under the radar screen”.
- Obama first steps are very good. 1) close Guantanamo. 2) withdraw Iraq 2011 3) climate change 4) Hillary Clinton for Secretary of state.
- McCain was a unipolarist. Obama is a multi-polarist. Will have a new take on EU, Brazil, China, India etc.
- The problem is that EU will actually have to cooperate with the US. And cant hide anymore behind Bush’s failures.
- The more Vaclav Klaus goes to Ireland to campaign against Lisbon, the better for the Lisbon Treaty.
- The French will have an acute PPD – post-presidency depression. All former presidencies have it.
- Ireland – the price for Lisbon is probably one commissioner per state.
- There is no crisis of dysfunctionality in the EU. After the 2004 as a TEPSA study showed decisions are actually taken faster in the council.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
corectie – lehman brothers pe 09.09.08. stiu la ce ministru te referi, are idei super ok in general.
personal, nu sunt de acord ca invazia rusa in Georgia a fost un succes militar clar, si nici ca a fost singurul dupa WW2 (Cehoslovacia?).
apoi, visa-free pentru rusi – who will support that? tu ce parere ai?
si inca o data, felicitari pentru activitatea extraordinara a ecfr. raportul lui Noel trebuie citit de toti cei care mai inghit dezinformarile cu dependenta energetica. tu cand mai publici ceva?
November 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
lucian, sorry cu lehman brothers – ai dreptate. n-am inteles eu corect ca era la inceput si nu imi mobilizasem substanta cenusie (si tocmai intarziasem un pic).
Visa-free pentru rusi: paradoxal, dar cei mai mari prieteni ai rusiei gen germania, sunt mai reticenti decat cei mai mari adversari ai rusiei (lituania si polonia) :) statele noi membre – au introdus vize pentru rusi relativ nudemult si sunt mai putin speriati de eliminarea vizelor decat unele state membre mai vechi (care aktfel sunt pritenoase). e un mic paradox aici. desi estonia de exemplu este foarte clar impotriva eliminarii vizelor. ei spun ca daca se elimina vizele franta va primi milionarii rusi, iar ei vor primi banditii din regiunile ruse adiacente :)
eu hm… chiar azi am scris o chestie mai scurta. dar avem acum un prim draft al unui raport pe politicile de vecinatate a Ru si UE. dar probabil apare mai prin februarie… oricum incerc sa-mi termin phdul foarte curand… asa capacitatea mea de a scrie cam incolo se duce :)
November 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
ce ministru? spune a doua litera din nume si prenume si iti spun daca ai dreptate :) vezi ce reguli conspirative am elaborat pe blog :)
November 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
buna :) cred ca e vorba despre ….., un mare mare potential, sper sa fie si la noi asa niste personalitati in curand. de altfel, in majoritatea statelor membre liderii aflati acum la putere nu sunt foarte vizionari si charismatici (nu il punem la socoteala pe domnul bruni :) ) – poate si asta joaca un rol in imaginea slabanoaga si neputincioasa pe care o are ue de ex. in relatiile cu dictatura de la est?
centru-dreapta va continua sa domine scena politica europeana inca multi ani de acum incolo, mai ales dupa ce subiectele verzi si stangist-interventioniste au devenit mainstream. cand va aparea un jacques delors de centru-dreapta si cine crezi ca va fi?
November 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
ai dreptate :) de aia daca nu te super am sters acele litere :) altfel trebuia sa sterg postul.
well… sunt mai mult ministri de externe destul de buni.. problema in ue (cea mai acuta in politica externa) este “lowest common denominator”. adica faptul ca toata uniunea trebuie sa astepte pana se mobilizeaza cel mai sceptic stat membru…
imaginea neputinciosa a ue – este exagerata, dar nu intru tot rupta de realitate
urmatorul jacques delors… nu stiu., vezi ca posturile lui barosso-solana sunt aproape automatic predispuse fata de persoane fara opinii puternice… daca esti federalist de blocheaza britanicii, daca esti prea interguvernamentalist te blocheaza nemtii; daca esti prea anti-rus te blocheaza unii, daca esti prea anti-sua te blocheaza altii… si tot asa pana ue se alege cu lideri foarte consensuali, fara opinii fixe, cu viziuni spalacite si oarecum palide. in anii 80 era mai simplu ca alegi pe cineva ca delors pentru ca si UE era mai putin politizat, mai putin prezent si vizibil in viata tuturor… era una din sintitutiile tehnocratice care nu se ocupa de chestii atat de sensibile pentru electoratele nationale ca politica externa, emigratie, vize, sau chiar bail-outs (sprijin financiar) pentru companii falimentare gen alitalia etc.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:40 am
[...] de securitate. recunosc ca nu a fost cea mai interesanta discutie. mai putin interesanta decat aceasta. si totusi iata cateva [...]