| ||||
Round-table discussionEU-Russia relations in 2009: Business as Unusual?
Riga, 19 February 2009Summary Concept paper Programme 2008 was a turbulent year for EU-Russia relations. The Georgia crisis and, later on, the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine, have made clear the limitations of the technocratic, business-as-usual approach, while showing the importance of the EU's role in the world. To stimulate the expert discussion on this issue, on February 19, the Baltic Forum, together with the Representation of the European Commission in Latvia and policy centre EuroCivitas, held a round-table discussion on the state of EU-Russia relations. Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (London) Oksana Antonenko, Head of the Department on European Political Studies at the Centre for European Integration, Institute for World Economy and International Relations (Moscow) Nadezhda Arbatova, Senior Research Fellow at the Latvian Institute of International Affairs Dzintra Bungs, Director of the EU-Russia Centre (Brussels) Fraser Cameron, Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis (Moscow) Sergey Oznobischev, Director of the Latvian Institute of International Affairs Andris Sprūds, Senior Fellow at the Danish Institute for International Studies Fabrizio Tassinari, representative of the DG Relax, the EU Commission, Michael Webb and others were asked to express opinions on the issues related to the future of the EU-Russia relations. The main conclusion to be drawn from the discussion is that the EU-Russia relations can and should develop despite the obvious differences and obstacles. An new and more effective treaty; a realistic approach to disagreements; focusing on win-win areas and projects where success would be achievable and perceptible; strengthening dialogue and contacts - these are some of the keys to a more effective EU-Russia relationship in the coming years. In the following, the opinions and recommendations put forward by the experts are presented in more detail. Some of the ideas and judgements referred to below reflect a consensual opinion of the discussion participants; some are based on individual opinions.
|
||||
