DOCSLIB.ORG

Prace OSW Zeszyt 22

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prace OSW Zeszyt 22 OÂRODEK STUDIÓW WSCHODNICH Centre for Eastern Studies Prace OSW / CES Studies RosjaPRACE wobec Unii Europejskiej: kryzys „strategicznego partnerstwa” RussiaOS vs. the EuropeanW Union: a “strategicCE partnership”S crisis STUDIES numer 22 Warszawa styczeƒ 2006 / Warsaw January 2006 number © Copyright by OÊrodek Studiów Wschodnich © Copyright by Centre for Eastern Studies Redaktor serii / Series editor Anna ¸abuszewska Opracowanie graficzne / Graphic design Dorota Nowacka T∏umaczenie / Translation Ilona Duchnowicz Wspó∏praca / Co-operation Jim Todd Wydawca / Publisher OÊrodek Studiów Wschodnich Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6 a Warszawa / Warsaw, Poland tel./phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 fax: +48 /22/ 525 80 40 Seria „Prace OSW” zawiera materia∏y analityczne przygotowane w OÊrodku Studiów Wschodnich The “CES Studies” series contains analytical materials prepared at the Centre for Eastern Studies Materia∏y analityczne OSW mo˝na przeczytaç na stronie www.osw.waw.pl Tam równie˝ znaleêç mo˝na wi´cej informacji o OÊrodku Studiów Wschodnich The Centre’s analytical materials can be found on the Internet at www. osw.waw.pl More information about the Centre for Eastern Studies is available at the same web address ISSN 1642-4484 Spis treÊci / Contents Rosja wobec Unii Europejskiej: kryzys „strategicznego partnerstwa” / 5 Marek Menkiszak Tezy / 5 Wst´p / 6 I. Objawy kryzysu partnerstwa / 8 II. èród∏a problemów w stosunkach Rosja – UE / 15 III. Konsekwencje kryzysu dla przysz∏oÊci stosunków rosyjsko-unijnych / 25 Aneksy/ 28 Russia vs. the European Union: a “strategic partnership” crisis / 41 Marek Menkiszak Theses / 41 Introduction / 42 I. Symptoms of the crisis in partnership / 44 II. The sources of problems in Russian-EU relations / 51 III. Consequences of the crisis for future Russian-EU relations / 61 Appendices / 64 Tezy 1. Wbrew deklaracjom obydwu stron o rozwoju „strategicznego partnerstwa” stosunki mi´dzy Rosjà a Unià Europejskà znajdujà si´ w ostat- nich latach w stanie, który mo˝na okreÊliç jako kryzysowy. Nie oznacza to, ˝e w stosunkach ro- syjsko-unijnych nie ma osiàgni´ç. Chodzi o to, ˝e Rosj´ i Uni´ dzielà doÊç zasadnicze ró˝nice w percepcji, aspiracjach i interesach, którym towarzyszy brak zaufania i rozczarowanie. Kry- zys przejawia si´ we wzajemnej krytyce stron, powtarzajàcych si´ regularnie okresach spi´ç i och∏odzenia stosunków („minikryzysach”) oraz zw∏aszcza w „wirtualizacji wspó∏pracy” – maskowaniu coraz bogatszà formà dialogu Rosja wobec Unii i wspó∏pracy niedostatków istotnej treÊci w wie- lu kluczowych sferach. Europejskiej: kryzys 2. Przyczyny kryzysu sà zró˝nicowane, a cz´Êç z nich ma g∏´boki charakter. Wi´kszoÊç z nich „strategicznego ma swe êród∏a w Rosji i jej polityce. Do przy- 5 czyn fundamentalnych nale˝y tu zaliczyç: brak partnerstwa” jasno okreÊlonej to˝samoÊci cywilizacyjnej Rosji (paƒstwo europejskie vs. paƒstwo eurazjatyc- Marek Menkiszak kie); brak zdefiniowanej i utrwalonej wizji miej- sca Rosji we wspó∏czesnym Êwiecie i opartej na niej polityki (opcja mocarstwowa vs. opcja inte- gracyjna); kryzys „projektu europejskiego” Rosji (zwolennicy realnej integracji Rosji do przes- trzeni europejskiej sà obecnie w rosyjskiej elicie w mniejszoÊci); brak zrozumienia i negatywna percepcja UE i jej polityki w du˝ej cz´Êci rosyj- wobec Rosja Unii Europejskiej: kryzys „strategicznego partnerstwa” skich elit; brak u rosyjskich w∏adz wizji doce- lowego modelu stosunków z UE. Stan kryzysu wzmacniajà problemy le˝àce po stronie Unii Europejskiej. Kryzys wewn´trzny w Unii (nie- jasnoÊç perspektyw reformy instytucjonalnej, polityki rozszerzenia i sàsiedztwa) rzutuje ne- gatywnie na polityk´ UE wobec Rosji. 3. Do pog∏´bienia kryzysu przyczyniajà si´ tak- ˝e inne czynniki zwiàzane z jednej strony ze specyfikà polityki Federacji Rosyjskiej, a tak˝e wynikajàce ze sprzecznoÊci interesów Rosji i Unii Europejskiej. W pierwszym przypadku chodzi m.in. o to, ˝e obecne w∏adze Rosji realizujà mo- del systemowy (autorytarny) zasadniczo od- mienny od standardów europejskich, ponadto uciekajà si´ do negatywnej taktyki politycznej w relacjach z UE (w tym rozgrywania podzia∏ów Prace OSW w Unii Europejskiej). W drugim przypadku na Wst´p czo∏o wysuwajà si´ sprzecznoÊci w polityce stron wobec „wspólnego sàsiedztwa” (zw∏asz- Rosja i Unia Europejska kszta∏tujà partnerstwo cza zachodnich paƒstw WNP po∏o˝onych po- nazywane strategicznym1. W Unii Europejskiej mi´dzy Rosjà i UE). Rosja stara si´ wspieraç na mo˝na spotkaç si´ z tezà, i˝ Rosja jest jednym tym obszarze specyficzny, odmienny od propo- z najwa˝niejszych lub wr´cz najwa˝niejszym sà- nowanego przez UE, model polityczno-gos- siadem UE2. Dostawy rosyjskich noÊników ener- podarczy, aktywnoÊç UE traktujàc jako wyzwa- gii (ropy naftowej i gazu ziemnego) sà jednym nie dla swoich interesów. z kluczowych êróde∏ zaopatrzenia paƒstw UE w te surowce. W Rosji z kolei podkreÊla si´, i˝ UE 4. Przysz∏oÊç stosunków rosyjsko-unijnych zale- jest dominujàcym partnerem handlowym i jed- ˝y od wielu czynników. Analiza aktualnych wa˝- nym z kluczowych partnerów politycznych Fe- niejszych trendów prowadzi do wniosku, i˝: deracji Rosyjskiej3. Przez ostatnie pi´tnaÊcie lat – w perspektywie krótkoterminowej nie nale˝y Wspólnoty Europejskie, a nast´pnie Unia Euro- spodziewaç si´ wyraênej poprawy sytuacji pejska oraz Rosja stworzy∏y g´stà sieç powiàzaƒ, i przezwyci´˝enia kryzysu, g∏ównie ze wzgl´du instytucji dialogu i wspó∏pracy. Kolejne szczyty na jego g∏´bokie przyczyny oraz brak przes∏a- UE – Rosja sà cz´sto prezentowane jako sukcesy nek do istotnej zmiany sytuacji w polityce we- obydwu stron, pozytywne prze∏omy we wzajem- wn´trznej i w otoczeniu mi´dzynarodowym nych stosunkach. Przyjmowane deklaracje pe∏ne Rosji sà podnios∏ych stwierdzeƒ o pozytywnym ich ro- – w perspektywie d∏ugoterminowej mo˝na zwoju. 6 oczekiwaç pozytywnych – z punktu widzenia UE – zmian w polityce europejskiej Rosji; jest A jednak wÊród ekspertów, zw∏aszcza rosyjskich, szansa na odrodzenie „projektu europejskie- narasta przekonanie, ˝e za bogatà formà dialogu go” Rosji, do takiego wniosku sk∏aniajà d∏ugo- i wspó∏pracy Rosji z UE kryje si´ bardzo skromna falowe trendy (w tym: przewaga d∏ugotermino- treÊç, a ich stosunki znajdujà si´ w istocie w kry- wych tendencji odÊrodkowych nad tendencjami zysie4. Co wi´cej, kryzys ten dojrza∏ na tyle, ˝e od integracyjnymi na obszarze WNP, wzrost pot´- koƒca 2003 roku, obok urz´dowego optymizmu gi Chin, spodziewany wzrost zagro˝enia funda- pojawiajà si´ bardzo krytyczne g∏osy oficjalnych mentalizmem i ekstremizmem islamskim na przedstawicieli i organów obydwu stron (zw∏a- terytorium Federacji Rosyjskiej, asymetryczne szcza UE). i pozbawione trwa∏ych podstaw partnerstwo Rosja wobec Rosja Unii Europejskiej: kryzys „strategicznego partnerstwa” z USA, a zw∏aszcza istniejàce g∏´bokie wi´zi kul- – Dlaczego mo˝emy mówiç o kryzysie i na czym turalne, polityczne i gospodarcze pomi´dzy Ro- on polega? sjà i resztà Europy). – Jakie sà najwa˝niejsze êród∏a obecnych prob- lemów w stosunkach rosyjsko-unijnych? – Jakie sà konsekwencje obecnych problemów dla przysz∏oÊci stosunków Rosja – UE? Na te pytania stara si´ odpowiedzieç niniejszy tekst. Nie stanowi on pe∏nej prezentacji stosun- ków rosyjsko-unijnych, lecz koncentruje si´ na tym, co przeszkadza autentycznemu partnerstwu pomi´dzy Rosjà i UE, analizujàc problem z punktu widzenia polityki rosyjskiej wobec UE. Dlatego tekst nie zawiera g∏´bszej analizy polityki UE wo- bec Rosji ani te˝ nie analizuje bli˝ej tych êróde∏ problemów w stosunkach rosyjsko-unijnych, któ- re le˝à po stronie unijnej. Tekst niniejszy sk∏ada si´ z trzech cz´Êci. W pier- wszej scharakteryzowane zosta∏y widoczne ze- Prace OSW wn´trzne objawy kryzysu w stosunkach rosyj- panelowych (paêdziernik 2004 roku i styczeƒ 2005 sko-unijnych. Cz´Êç druga poÊwi´cona jest ana- roku w Moskwie)7. Pierwszy z nich konstatuje lizie przyczyn kryzysu, zarówno tych o charak- „systemowy kryzys” pomi´dzy Unià Europejskà terze pierwotnym, g∏´bszym i d∏ugotrwa∏ym, i Rosjà, który przejawia si´ m.in. brakiem strate- jak i tych pochodnych, o bardziej doraênych kon- gii i wzajemnà nieufnoÊcià. Drugi równie˝ pos∏u- sekwencjach. W cz´Êci trzeciej tekstu podj´ta guje si´ poj´ciem kryzysu, wskazujàc zw∏aszcza na zosta∏a natomiast próba charakterystyki nas- brak wzajemnego zrozumienia, powa˝ne ró˝nice t´pstw kryzysu dla przysz∏oÊci stosunków rosyj- polityczne i rywalizacj´ gospodarczà Rosji i UE. sko-unijnych wraz z próbà zarysowania najbar- dziej prawdopodobnych scenariuszy ich rozwoju. Problemy le˝àce po stronie unijnej Definicja kryzysu Do kryzysowego stanu w stosunkach rosyjsko- Dialog i wspó∏praca pomi´dzy Rosjà i Unià Euro- -unijnych przyczyniajà si´ niewàtpliwie, choç – pejskà przynios∏y osiàgni´cia w niektórych sfe- jak si´ wydaje – w mniejszym stopniu, problemy rach, podpisano wiele porozumieƒ. Obydwie stro- le˝àce po stronie unijnej. Zagadnienia te – jak to ny majà ÊwiadomoÊç znaczàcej wagi stosunków zaznaczono powy˝ej – wychodzà poza ramy ni- wzajemnych. Co wi´cej, w ostatnich latach rosnà- niejszej analizy, która koncentruje si´ na proble- cego znaczenia nabierajà stosunki bilateralne po- mach wyst´pujàcych po stronie rosyjskiej. Nie mi´dzy Rosjà i poszczególnymi paƒstwami cz∏on- mo˝na jednak pominàç tych pierwszych milcze- kowskimi UE. W niektórych przypadkach mo˝emy niem, gdy˝ obraz zagadnienia by∏by wówczas da- 7 mówiç o doÊç daleko idàcej pragmatycznej wspó∏- lece niepe∏ny. Ze wzgl´du na przyj´te w tekÊcie pracy. za∏o˝enia wypada ograniczyç si´ do wymienienia Poj´cie kryzysu, jakim pos∏ugujemy si´ w niniej-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05
    CO VERIN G CO N FLICT Reporting on Conflicts in the N orth Caucasus in the Russian M edia N M AY 2008 ARTICLE 19, 6-8 Am w ell Street, London EC1R 1U Q , U nited Kingdom Tel +44 20 7278 9292 · Fax +44 20 7278 7660 · info@ article19.org · http://w w w .article19.org ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05 i ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION Covering Conflict Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media May 2008 © ARTICLE 19 ISBN 978-1-906586-01-0 Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05 i i ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05 ii i ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION A CKN O W LED G EM EN TS This report was researched and written by the Europe Programme of ARTICLE 19. Chapter 6, on ‘International Standards of Freedom of Expression and Conflict Reporting’ was written by Toby Mendel, Director of ARTICLE 19’s Law Programme. Chapter 5, ‘Reporting Conflict: Media Monitoring Results’ was compiled by Natalia Mirimanova, independent conflict resolution and media consultant. The analysis of media monitoring data was carried out by Natalia Mirimanova and Luitgard Hammerer, (formerly) ARTICLE 19 Regional Representative - Europe, CIS.
    [Show full text]
  • The Security of the Caspian Sea Region
    11. The choice of independent Georgia Alexander Rondeli* I. Introduction The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to 14 independent republics with little or no experience of modern independent statehood and a post- imperial Russia as a struggling but still powerful neighbour. Georgia was one of those republics, and was confronted first with the issue of survival and security and later with the choice of strategic orientation. This chapter describes how a small and weak independent Georgia, almost a quasi-state torn apart by internal contradictions and economic problems, has struggled to define its strategic orientation and main national security and foreign policy priorities. The objective is to identify alternatives that Georgia may consider in the process of strategic decision making and to pinpoint the factors that determine its strategic and security choices. Has Georgia chosen its political orientation? If it has, is its choice realistic and sustainable or is it based on political idealism and lack of sufficient strategic experience? The question of political realism is particularly important for a country like Georgia, which has found itself part not of the globalized and pluralistic world, but instead of the post-Soviet space still dominated by principles of nationalism and even aggressive militarism. After the short period of so-called strategic idealism that characterized the early days of independence, Georgia began to develop an increasingly realistic foreign policy, which has been less motivated by the fear of Russia and not solely driven by the short-term survival agenda. The strategic idealism of the young Georgian state was characterized by the dominance of what Stephen Jones calls cultural paradigms.1 These are trad- itional Georgian values, perceptions and attitudes towards foreign peoples and states and the outside world in general.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Offer to Its Eastern Neighbours
    Materials published here have a working paper character. They can be subject to further publi- cation. The views and opinions expressed here reflect the author(s) point of view and not neces- sarily those of CASE Network. This work has been prepared within the framework of the ENEPO project (EU Eastern Neighbourhood: Economic Potential and Future Development), financed within the Sixth Frame- work Programme of the European Commission. Keywords: ENP, CIS countries, EU Jel codes: P36, P45, P48, P51, P52 © CASE – Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw, 2008 Graphic Design: Agnieszka Natalia Bury EAN 9788371784637 Publisher: CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research on behalf of CASE Network 12 Sienkiewicza, 00-010 Warsaw, Poland tel.: (48 22) 622 66 27, 828 61 33, fax: (48 22) 828 60 69 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.case-research.eu CIS COUNTRIES’ INTERESTS VIS-À-VIS THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS EASTERN POLICY Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Part I: The CIS States’ Interests in Relation to the European Union ................................................ 7 I.1. The CIS countries’ position in relation to the EU.................................................................. 7 I.2. The political interests of the CIS states in relation to the EU ............................................. 11 I.3. Economic interests............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Russia and the Outside World
    Eidgenössische “Regionalization of Russian Foreign and Security Policy” Technische Hochschule Zürich Project organized by The Russian Study Group at the Center for Security Studies and Conflict Research Andreas Wenger, Jeronim Perovic,´ Andrei Makarychev, Oleg Alexandrov WORKING PAPER NO.2 AUGUST 2000 Islands of Globalization: Regional Russia and the Outside World DESIGN : SUSANA PERROTTET RIOS Globalization in Russia should be discussed among its domestic actors. In most By Andrei S. Makarychev cases of non-central governments’ cooperation with foreign partners a number of institutions are engaged, each belonging to different social levels. Its effects are primarily dependent on the interaction of those forces and the resources involved. The paper argues that globalization is still underdeveloped in Russia, which is a big problem for the country as a whole: if Russia is unable to integrate with the world and the “islands of globalization” are overrun by the “ocean”, this would keep the country isolated and underdeveloped for many decades to come. The paper presented focuses on three types of gaps that exist for globalization of the regions. The first one divides Russia and the West in terms of their attitudes towards living in a global world. The second set of gaps divides Russia’s regions that are not equal actors in the international arena. Thirdly, there are controversies in the group of four domestic actors, each of which has its own foreign policy perspec- tives. After that the paper turns to the issue of obstacles and opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • A Power Audit of EU-Russia Relations
    A Power Audit of EU-Russia Relations Mark Leonard & Nicu Popescu POLICY PAPER ABOUT ECFR Mark Leonard Richard Gowan The European Council on Foreign Relations was Executive Director Policy Fellow launched in October 2007 to promote a more [email protected] [email protected] integrated European foreign policy in support of shared European interests and values. With its Hans Wolters Daniel Korski unique structure, ECFR brings a genuinely pan- Deputy Director Senior Policy Fellow European perspective on Europe’s role in the world: [email protected] [email protected] Ulrike Guérot Alba Lamberti ECFR was founded by a council whose members Senior Policy Fellow Advocacy include serving and former ministers and Head of Berlin Office [email protected] parliamentarians, business leaders, distinguished [email protected] academics, journalists and public intellectuals. Their Pierre Noel aim is to promote a new strategic culture at the José Ignacio Torreblanca Policy Fellow heart of European foreign policy. Senior Policy Fellow [email protected] Head of Madrid Office [email protected] Katherine Parkes With offices in seven countries, ECFR’s in-house PA to Executive Director policy team brings together some of Europe’s most Thomas Klau [email protected] distinguished analysts and policy entrepreneurs to Editorial Director provide advice and proposals on the EU’s big global Head of Paris Office Nicu Popescu challenges. [email protected] Policy Fellow [email protected] ECFR’s pan-European advocacy and campaigns will Ognyan Minchev work through the internet and the media to make Senior Policy Fellow Zsofia Szilagyi the necessary connections between innovative Head of Sofia Office Communication thinking, policy-making and civic action.
    [Show full text]
  • CIS Countries' Interests Vis-À-Vis the European Union and Its Eastern
    Materials published here have a working paper character. They can be subject to further publi- cation. The views and opinions expressed here reflect the author(s) point of view and not neces- sarily those of CASE Network. This work has been prepared within the framework of the ENEPO project (EU Eastern Neighbourhood: Economic Potential and Future Development), financed within the Sixth Frame- work Programme of the European Commission. Keywords: ENP, CIS countries, EU Jel codes: P36, P45, P48, P51, P52 © CASE – Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw, 2008 Graphic Design: Agnieszka Natalia Bury EAN 9788371784637 Publisher: CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research on behalf of CASE Network 12 Sienkiewicza, 00-010 Warsaw, Poland tel.: (48 22) 622 66 27, 828 61 33, fax: (48 22) 828 60 69 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.case-research.eu CIS COUNTRIES’ INTERESTS VIS-À-VIS THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS EASTERN POLICY Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Part I: The CIS States’ Interests in Relation to the European Union ................................................ 7 I.1. The CIS countries’ position in relation to the EU.................................................................. 7 I.2. The political interests of the CIS states in relation to the EU ............................................. 11 I.3. Economic interests............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Major Armed Conflicts
    2. Major armed conflicts SHARON WIHARTA and IAN ANTHONY* I. Introduction While the decline since 1999 in the number of major armed conflicts con- tinued in 2002, several developments during the year called attention to armed conflicts in various locations.1 Conflicts that were under way in 2002 under- lined the continuous evolution in the methods of war fighting, in particular those in which major asymmetries exist either between states with widely divergent capabilities or between state and non-state forces. Military means were used in 2002 in response to terrorist attacks. Fighting continued in Afghanistan, and President George W. Bush emphasized that the military operations of the US-led coalition forces would not be confined to that country or limited to action against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on the USA in September 2001.2 While the declared objective of military operations is the defeat of ‘global reach’ terrorism, the primary targets of measures taken after September 2001 have been armed Islamic fundamentalist organizations that have carried out or been implicated in terrorist activities. Apart from Afghanistan, such organiza- tions were present in three locations where conflicts deteriorated during 2002—in Israel, the Philippines and the Russian republic of Chechnya. In all three cases, governments carried out aggressive anti-terrorist measures, includ- ing offensive military operations, to prevent, deter or otherwise respond to terrorism. There is strong evidence of links between cells of the al-Qaeda network, responsible for the attacks of 11 September 2001, and Islamic fundamentalist organizations in Sudan as well as (somewhat less compelling) evidence of ties to groups in Somalia.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and the European Union: Responding to Global Competition Challenges
    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY Sponsored by PRELIMINARY AGENDA EU–Russia Forum on Foreign Policy and Security Russia and the European Union: Responding to Global Competition Challenges Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (SVOP), Moscow German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Berlin Mario Soares Foundation, Lisbon July 3-4, 2007 Lisbon, Portugal Mario Soares Foundation Rua de S. Bento, 176 - 1200-821 Lisboa, Portugal Working Languages: Russian, English, Portuguese Monday, July 2nd, 2007 Evening Arrival of the EU and Russian participants, Check in at Hotel Altis Hotel (Center), Rua Castilho 11, 1269-072 LISBOA – PORTUGAL, Tel. + 351 21 310 60 00, Fax. + 351 21 310 62 62 http://www.altishotels.com/default_en.asp Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007 09:00 Meeting at the lobby of the hotel, transfer to the conference premises 2 09:30 – 13:00 Panel 1. EU and Russia: Global Players or Global Playgrounds? Despite claims that Russia and the EU continue do move towards a stra- tegic partnership, common “spaces”, a Free Trade Zone and energy alli- ance, it has also become obvious recently that Russian and the EU con- fronts each other on several economic issues. Have Russia and the EU be- come serious rivals and competitors on global markets? Chair: Mário Soares Presenters: Sergey Yastrzhembsky Tessen von Heydebreck Manuel Lobo Antunes Discussion 11:00 – 11:30 Coffee break 11:30 – 13:00 Discussion continues 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14.00 – 17:00 Panel 2. How to Promote the Energy Dialogue? Since 2006, a serious rift emerged with the EU on how to continue build- ing an energy alliance with Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles
    OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Strasbourg, 1 March 2000 CommDH(2000)1 Original version in French REPORT BY MR ALVARO GIL-ROBLES, COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, ON HIS VISIT TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, (IN PARTICULAR INGUSHETIA AND CHECHNYA – GROZNY) 24 to 29 February 2000 for the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly 2 CommDH(2000)1 1. Having just returned from my journey which took me to Warsaw (21-23 February) then to Moscow and the northern Caucasian region (25-28 February) only yesterday evening, the report which I now submit to you (and which you will receive subsequently in writing) will necessarily be brief, but it should nevertheless enable you to continue your discussions on this item of your agenda in fuller knowledge of the relevant facts. Appended to my written report, you will also find the programme of my meetings and visits, during which I was accompanied Mr Ekkehart MÜLLER-RAPPARD, Director of my private office, and Mr Andrew DRZEMCZEWSKI, Head of the Monitoring Unit, with respect to my visit to Warsaw, and Mr Sergey BELYAEV of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, with respect to my stay in the Russian Federation. 2. In order to be quite clear regarding the sequence and aims of my last trip and the scope and content of this report, I wish to state at the outset that: (i) the date of my visit to ODIHR in Warsaw had been decided well before the date of my meeting with the Russian federal authorities in Moscow and (ii) it was only once in Moscow, on 25 February, that the itinerary
    [Show full text]
  • Photovisa. Krasnodar. 2014
    PhotoVisa. Krasnodar. 2014 1 THE STATE DUMA OF THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION OF THE SIXTH CONVOCATION CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE DUMA Okhotny Ryad St., 1, Moscow, Russia, 103265 To the organizers, participants and viewers of the VI International Festival of Photography PhotoVisa Dear friends! I welcome you in connection with the opening of the VI International Festival of Photography PhotoVisa. Today, when photography became a universal language of communication between people and an im- portant evidence of history, I am pleased to note the role played by the Festival of Photography PhotoVisa. During its existence, the Festival has become a momentous event for the southern region and one of the most important forums on the Russian photographic scene. The Festival’s theme in 2014 — “What’s Important and Precious to me” — allows masters of photography express human hopes and aspirations in the best possible way. This year the Festival covers four cities of Krasnodar region: Krasnodar, Sochi, Novorossiysk and Anapa. 37 exhibitions by the authors from Russia and 20 countries of the world will be shown in museums, galleries and public spaces of these cities. High credibility of the event is proved by the fact that the Festival is expected to welcome more than 50 guests from different regions of Russia and the countries of Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South Americas. All those who over the years of the Festival existence have contributed to its implementation certainly deserve words of gratitude. I wish success to the VI International Festival of Photography PhotoVisa and bright and unforgettable impressions to its audience.
    [Show full text]
  • Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights
    OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Strasbourg, 1 March 2000 CommDH(2000)1 Original version in French REPORT BY MR ALVARO GIL-ROBLES, COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, ON HIS VISIT TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, (IN PARTICULAR INGUSHETIA AND CHECHNYA – GROZNY) 24 to 29 February 2000 for the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly 2 CommDH(2000)1 1. Having just returned from my journey which took me to Warsaw (21-23 February) then to Moscow and the northern Caucasian region (25-28 February) only yesterday evening, the report which I now submit to you (and which you will receive subsequently in writing) will necessarily be brief, but it should nevertheless enable you to continue your discussions on this item of your agenda in fuller knowledge of the relevant facts. Appended to my written report, you will also find the programme of my meetings and visits, during which I was accompanied Mr Ekkehart MÜLLER-RAPPARD, Director of my private office, and Mr Andrew DRZEMCZEWSKI, Head of the Monitoring Unit, with respect to my visit to Warsaw, and Mr Sergey BELYAEV of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, with respect to my stay in the Russian Federation. 2. In order to be quite clear regarding the sequence and aims of my last trip and the scope and content of this report, I wish to state at the outset that: (i) the date of my visit to ODIHR in Warsaw had been decided well before the date of my meeting with the Russian federal authorities in Moscow and (ii) it was only once in Moscow, on 25 February, that the itinerary
    [Show full text]
  • How War Becomes Acceptable: Russian Re-Phrasing of Chechnya
    How War Becomes Acceptable: Russian re-phrasing of Chechnya Julie Wilhelmsen PhD thesis in Political Science, submitted to the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo November 2013 Acknowledgements There are many people I would like to thank for their support in helping me to complete this dissertation. First of all, Richard Wyn Jones has been the perfect tutor. He has been frank, enthusiastic and supportive beyond what could be expected from any supervisor. I have benefited greatly from the environment at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), and in particular from my colleagues in the Russia research group. Cooperation and conversations over the years with Helge Blakkisrud, Geir Flikke, Jakub Godzimirski, Heidi Kjærnet, Elana Wilson Rowe and Indra Øverland have made this dissertation possible. Also the group of NUPI colleagues who persistently work on theory, despite the lack of funding for such activity, have been a great inspiration. I would like to thank Iver Neumann, Ole Jacob Sending, Halvard Leira, Karsten Friis and Morten Skumsrud Andersen for keeping up the good work. I am particularly grateful to Kristin Haugevik, who has been my closest companion on this journey, intellectually and personally. Several persons have read my text or parts of it at various stages. I would like to thank Patrick Jackson for very useful comments on the theory chapter and Jeff Checkel for thorough feedback on the research design. I am indebted to Elana Wilson Rowe, Iver Neumann, Ole Jacob Sending and Stacie Goddard in particular, for having read the entire text and providing comments that were both encouraging and challenging.
    [Show full text]