Questions and answers

So here we are. You've had, I think, a good, a good report from the four panels of this morning which were, I think, very good and really nobody lost time in them. So I would like now to open the floor for your comments on this, on these panels. And of course I would encourage chairmen and speakers from panels to respond if they feel they have to. There is not an obligation to do so, but if you, somebody wants to make comments, this is the moment of doing that.

Yes? Yes, Mr. Emerson, please.

SHEA: Michael, there's a microphone...

MINUTO-RIZZO: Unless you come here. I mean, perhaps it’s easier for you.

SHEA: Just in the middle of the room there's a microphone. There’s a podium with a microphone.

MICHAEL EMERSON (Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, and former EU Ambassador to Russia): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to comment on, on two things. One, the group I was in, which was Central Asia, and the other group I would also like to have been in, which was the conflicts one.

On Central Asia, I’d just like to refine a bit what the rapporteur said that I said, because I think it’s not just a personal matter. It’s a matter of policy specification. On the question as to in what circumstances NATO might suspend PfP with Uzbekistan, and the European Union might suspend the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, I suggested that conditionally in the hypothesis that president Karimov refused to accept the Secretary General’s proposal that there be a UN legitimized international inquiry. So this should be brought forward as an incentive or a potential penalty for Uzbekistan if it did or did not cooperate. And similarly, with respect to the US base, I didn't actually recommend that it be closed full stop, but rather that this base should not be taken as a hostage politically and that if Karimov refused to have an inquiry, and if the general political atmosphere aggravated and if Karimov said to the Americans, 'Either shut up and leave me with my good political regime, or clear out' that bluff should be called.

Now, on the, on the frozen conflicts, I would have liked the synthesis of these five conflicts--I would add Cyprus to the four of the former Soviet Union--Mr. Tarasyuk said (inaudible) or the Soviet Union, of course there's the Cyprus one as well. I would have liked the synthesis to have distinguished between three cases which I think conceivably soluble within a fairly short period, and two which I think have no prospects at the moment.

And the two that seem to me to have no prospects is in the case of Cyprus, I think it is clear that the Greek Republic of Cyprus is not interested in a federative solution along the lines of the Annan plan that has international legitimacy. That being the case, life has to go on, and the issue therefore should become now how to make life relatively normally liveable in economic terms in northern Cyprus and I think the international debate on this subject has not yet come to terms with, with this new reality.

With Abcasia(?), because it is linked to the Sotchy(?) region as it were, geographically, and because Georgia went in there and lost the war and because, there’s no chance, I think, of negotiating a federative solution, and I think the Georgian government is unrealistic to aim at that.

On the other hand, for Southern Ossetia and for Transnistria, in those two cases, I would submit that the regimes in question have no viable statehood prospects beyond being smugglers, little smugglers' entities. So in these cases, I would not agree with Sergei Karganov. He was suggesting that they should be entitled to statehood. I think in those two cases, the onus indeed is on Russia to withdraw their protection from these little smuggling dictatorships, because if the- if the tunnel through the Caucasus is blocked, then the Southern Ossetian regime collapses, and similarly Transnistria has no viability if the smuggling were to be stopped now by Ukraine and Moldova.

Thank you.

MINUTO-RIZZO: Thank you Mr. Emerson for your contribution.

Does anybody else wish to intervene on the four panels conclusions? Doesn't seem to be the case. So I think that we can close that kind of discussion. And then I would just open the floor asking you if you have general points to make, which are not necessarily linked to the four panels discussions and conclusions, but of a general nature concerning our conference or other issues. So I wonder if anybody wishes to contribute in that? Yes? I cannot recognize you because the front, the light is in front of me, but...

SHEA: It’s Fraser Cameron of the...

MINUTO-RIZZO: Fraser Cameron, oh, right, you are.

FRASER CAMERON: Well, it may not have been the same for all the panels, but I think we could perhaps have organized it slightly better in focusing one or two key questions to be debated within the panels. I felt that there was perhaps slightly too much emphasis given to prepared statements which could perhaps have been distributed in advance to delegates, and we should have allowed a little bit more time for discussion amongst very qualified people in the room. So if I was offering one piece of advice for the future, it would be that.

MINUTO-RIZZO: Thank you. This is a problem anywhere, you know, with this kind of meetings. Very difficult to convince everybody to leave the prepared statements. But of course we still fight...

SKONIECZKA: If I may make a very short comment on the panel of, of unsolved conflicts, we did not have to deal in this panel with pre-prepared statements, and I think that we’ve, that at least this panel has challenged and changed this political culture of this, of this discussion in the EAPC where we exchange pre-prepared formal statements on controversial issues. At least this panel was indeed an exchange of people speaking their minds and their hearts. Thank you.

SPECKHARD: That would go for panel two as well.

MINUTO-RIZZO: Yes, that was the case of panel two as well, so probably for some other panel, I don't know which one, but anyway.

UNIDENTIFIED: (inaudible).

MINUTO-RIZZO: Yes, I, time to look. Do, does anybody else wish to make a contribution at this point? If you do, please raise your hand so as to be recognized. It doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, I give the floor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden.

LAILA FREIWALDS (Foreign Minister of Sweden): I have to turn it around. I don't want to have most of you in my back. But then I have you, so I don't know what to do- I will circle around a bit.

Dear friends and colleagues, now when we are preparing for leaving Åre, I just want to make some personal remarks.

I can tell you that when we accepted to arrange this forum we had, I admit, high expectations--high expectations that we should have interesting discussions using the experience, the knowledge and the political influence that is represented here. And I must say that I think that we have succeeded to achieve what we wanted.

And I really want to stress the fact that I had the impression that, from most meetings there not pre-prepared speeches, but very spontaneous personal (inaudible). And I think that was what we wanted to achieve and we achieved that, and I hope that this means that we can continue to have these kind of gatherings. I think we need it, because we have many problems to face and to cooperate together with- to find solutions. And we have taken one step here today I think.

I want to take everyone who has participated in arranging this forum, of course, the Secretary General and his staff. Also all the organizers here in Åre, the whole community of Åre has been very helpful. And most of all, of course, all of you who have been contributing to our discussions, and truly, I want to say, showed what this partnership is about.

Thank you very, very much and have a good travel home- and safe.

(Applause)

MINUTO-RIZZO: So thank you very much Madam Minister for your- for your final intervention and thank you.

I would like to thank you all for your interventions. I think that this inaugural security forum, this experiment has been an excellent opportunity for us to stand back from our everyday work and take a serious look at the major security issues for the Euro-Atlantic region.

And I also thank, and I'm very convinced about that, that it has been particularly beneficial to have had the participations of members of civil society. They have enriched to a large extent our debate.

I will not try to draw out detailed conclusions from today’s discussions because I think they have covered a range of very diverse issues, and it would be unfair to summarize that in a few minutes.

But I think that these discussions have shown once again that over just such a wide range of diverse issues, allies and partners have shared security interests and will always be more secure if we continue to tackle the major security challenges together.

Most importantly, we need to make sure that we have a common understanding of the challenges we face, and this is why political dialogue and open exchanges are of such importance. And today’s discussions have made a major contribution, I hope, to our collective thinking.

So I would like to once again thank our Swedish host for their hospitality in this nice location, and I wish you all a very safe journey back home.

Thank you very much.