I am sending you the internet link to read the second issue of the “European Union Foreign Affairs Journal” (EUFAJ) of which I am editor. You may know that “Libertas” –European institute mentioned has nothing to do with the Irish movement “Libertas” .

In this second issue you will see my Standpoint on page 228 (that will be for each issue). You will see also the publicities of my ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT MBA on page 101 and for my book on page 230!

Let’s discover the second issue of the “European Union Foreign Affairs Journal” (EUFAJ) :

http://www.libertas-institut.com/de/EUFAJ/no1_2010.pdf

Best regards,

Olivier VEDRINE

From all the questions currently being raised concerning the European Union there is one that needs a top priority response as it will provide the answer to many other questions: We need to ask ourselves if we want Europe to become a real power.

The history of the construction of the Union began over 50 years ago. We have succeeded in constructing an economic union with a common currency but a political Europe remains to be seen. The founding fathers had imagined a more rapid development, but the real question remains: why this fearful and tepid approach to a political union?

Traditionally low voter turnout during European elections reflects more a lack of politicization concerning the European debate than a real disinterest on the part of the population, which has historically expressed a lot of interest in its construction. Today, the European Union stands at a turning point in its history and its future depends largely on the way it responds to the two great challenges facing it at present. On the one hand the blockage of the institutions caused by enlargement into Central and Eastern Europe and on the other hand “blockage of the minds” demonstrated by the resounding “No” from France and The Netherlands when asked to vote on the Constitutional Treaty in 2005. Another challenge arises from differences (economic, political and cultural) between the different societies that make up the Union, these are extremely difficult to resolve as they are perpetuated by a vacuum of ideas and discussion. Is it not this lack of debate that is the reason for our helpless situation?

Conflict and reconstruction in the Balkans has been an excellent test for Europe. The Balkans is a European laboratory where many peoples, religions and cultures are represented in an area of several thousand square kilometres. We have witnessed the disastrous consequences of power hungry nationalists exploiting these differences. It is time to accept our diversity and defend it by finding a model which incorporates our shared values, a model flexible enough to integrate national differences, but sufficiently pro-active to permit Europe to move beyond the current deadlock.

“We, the Peoples of Europe”

It must not be forgotten and we need to remain convinced that our differences are the source of the rich variety of inspirational thought in Europe. Also, the Balkan experience shows us that it is essential to guard against attacks of this kind. It is important to preserve our cultural diversity and to ensure that it is no longer used by nationalists to gain power. This is why be should seek to recognize and document this diversity and highlight it in a future European Constitution.

Numerous official documents use the phrase, “We the people….” But in the case of Europe we should not hesitate to state now: “We the peoples of Europe…” This expression does not mean that Europe should abandon its diversity but should build its unity around the wide diversity using a dynamic thought process. Another pitfall to avoid is a Europe punctually united, expressing solidarity during crises but incapable of uniting in the long term. The history of our continent is littered with the debris of short term alliances hastily created in times of peril. It is now time to pool our strengths and rise above this feudal legacy that persists in the subconscious of our member states. “We the peoples of Europe” are united precisely to ensure the uniqueness and unity of the European Union based on certain key principles that we will try to define now.

The Driving Engines of a Powerful Europe: The four values

To be a European citizen is to abide by the four values: Democracy, Dialogue, Human rights and Solidarity, these are the driving engines of European power. To become a European power capable of counterbalancing the USA, it is necessary to assert ourselves: militarily, economically, technologically and culturally. American power is made up of both Hard Power (most powerful military force in the world) and Soft Power (economic and cultural, with the symbol of Hollywood acting as a true war machine) these combine to make this country into a global power.

This is why the European Union should guard against the brain drain and put policies into place protecting our grey matter! It is worrying to note that research is the sick child of Europe. The cultural aspect is no less serious as it defines who we are. We are not solely an economic entity. To become a global power, it is necessary to have an overall leader and political unity. The draft Constitutional Treaty offered us the possibility of having a Minister of Foreign Affairs who would not be purely ornamental: whilst we have no overall representative to present to the world we cannot aspire to becoming a dynamic world power.

Finally, what also makes a great power is Society itself: it is the desire to adhere to a model. One speaks of the American way of life: it is up to us to promote the European way of life, by delving into our cultures, our philosophers or into what defines us, to find the ideas to create a new social model. Building a European dream is essential as we cannot create a defence force if we do not have the desire from the beginning to live together with the same objectives. This model needs to be constructed and I think that there is still a lack of debate.

What allowed the French Revolution to succeed? One huge united breath, the momentum given to the world by the ideas of many: “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”. Men whose status was that of subjects became citizens and masters of their individual and collective destiny. The young Republic was saved by military victories arising from its strong armies and also from the conviction that every soldier was a sword.

A Constitution is therefore needed as a first step in building a European dream made up of our individualities. The renowned “European social model” is a good example of what would be a credible alternative to the American model.

The Brakes on a Powerful Europe

A powerful Europe has certain brakes incorporated into its collective memory or sub consciousness which today can be overcome. “It is time to liberate ourselves of the liberators”: Indeed, just as Eastern Europe was liberated from the Soviet Union, we should also free ourselves of all external models and shed this inferiority complex that paralyzes us. Instead of giving up on our future we should take it in hand. The second obstacle is the return of nationalism and regionalism: the Balkans has seen the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Recently, Austria, Rumania and Poland have seen a resurgence of nationalist discourse. France is not an exception with votes for Le Pen in 2002 and a “no” vote against the European constitution in 2005. There exists a tangible fear heightened by the lack of debate. This translates into regional and national isolationism. Fear has won the first battle but it must not be allowed to win the final one. Despite the obstacles to European power, the fact remains that a number of projects have been successfully deployed within Europe, notably the structural fund. Countries like Spain and Portugal have seen massive improvements in social and economic development because of these funds. We can make a positive assessment of these European projects, especially that they prompted 12 new countries to want to join the economic union. A certain number of “big jobs” still need to be done, in social and political areas. Resources have been allocated to education and training programs but much remains to be done.

The Need for Political Union

The Union confirmed at the Nice summit its willingness to enlarge from the year 2003, admitting new members who met the conditions of accession. We are now 27! However we must ask ourselves the question that has yet to be answered, what will be the geographical boundaries of Europe? If we do not develop a “hardcore” of members as the vanguard of the political union we will lament the dilution of the Union as it enlarges.

The pressure of enlargement should have made the EU take a qualitative leap by strengthening the common policies, allowing new members to integrate into a reformed institutional framework. Through a complete institutional shake up and the creation of a hardcore of members we could bypass the blockages accumulated since the signing of the Maastricht treaty and stop condemning Europe to impotence. We could avoid a crisis which reveals our weaknesses and may lead to setbacks or even a collapse of the building which began in 1957.

However the idea of a hardcore of members is not welcome to some countries. Perhaps the new members will be reticent at the thought of integration into a federated Union when they have just escaped from the domination of the Soviet Union. Again, we must initiate a genuine political debate across the EU explaining to and inviting comments from countries and their citizens.

Faced with the strategic challenges of the 21st Century, the construction of a politically unified Europe is necessary. The new challenges cannot be handled by individual states neither by a system of intergovernmental cooperation. The latter showed its limitations in the ex Yugoslavia. We really need to organize the building of a political Europe in successive steps.

On centre stage, would be a few states which have chosen to go further in the political union, governed by a constitution. Members of this small group would be members of the EU and share common policies involving internal security (Schengen) and external security (defence). In addition they would jointly manage foreign affairs and the economy. In the first outer circle of states would be those interested only in free trade. However some states in this zone could choose to participate in common policies, including security policies (CFSP) Finally, there is the last group of candidate countries who meet the criteria of a political Europe. The “hard core” would drive the whole Union. This integration within geometric concentric circles would be a realistic way to construct a political Europe. Each country would be able to prepare in its own time for admission to the federation. There would be a shift from total integration to continued sustained influence.

Europe must propose a federated civilization and the creation of a new society. Its constitution should be included in this approach if it wishes to be better understood and accepted. Everywhere in the world, peoples are searching for an alternative to the American model. This is an historic opportunity to be seized by our continent.

Many nations are beginning to dislike receiving American aid as they feel it puts them under enforced trusteeship with Washington. The war in Iraq has increased this negative sentiment. There should be several models of development and society in this world so that everybody can find what suits them. We should propose a project which fights precariousness, respects the environment and allows individual citizens to flourish in the pursuit of happiness. We must accept that realistically, the market economy is the only one that functions, but we can adapt it to suit any economy so as to serve the population and not the other way around. Let us hope that the destiny of the European Union will be different to that of the Greek League of ancient times, which vanished with the disappearance of the threat from Persia. We have all the means to become a geopolitical power. The future will demand it if we are to face up to the challenges. We need to build a more humanistic European society whose values give rise to a dynamic federation. A constitution is an essential component to forming any sort of political Union.

Groups of European Thinkers and the Atlantic-Ural College

There is a real lack of Think-tanks in Europe. For a Think-tank to be efficient it should be broad scoped not elitist in order to convey its ideas. Thus, an idea is not imposed but discussed. Think-tanks should exist in Europe as sources of inspired proposals powered by the broad scope of their composition. Broad scope should mean drawing members from all areas, professional, generational, social, political……….Also broad scoped in the subjects covered (the economy, associations, military matters, academic, artistic etc.) We should follow the example of Anglo-Saxon Think-tanks and draw members from all corners of society, from business leaders to artists.

The Atlantic-Ural College, aims to examine issues related to the challenges of our modern societies through discussions and joint work involving all the human richness of Europe. Several nationalities come together in their shared desire to find a common path drawing from the experiences of every European nation and the nations linked to Europe, to intermingle the diverse cultural perspectives.

Human richness because the College brings together different personalities: employees from industry, military personnel, diplomats, University professors, artists, students…. All are involved in enlarging the project for a common defence policy based on the principles of Democracy, Dialogue, Human rights and Solidarity and all are working to better understand the issues, challenges, expectations and possibilities of this vision.

This year the College aims to diversify its activities and make them more current. At this time, it is working to set up a web site. With this system, the college hopes to quickly implement new activities among its members to further enrich its pool of ideas. The College Atlantic-Ural aims to develop into a veritable European “Think-tank”, not to impose its views but to consider the complexities and make valid proposals for the Europe of tomorrow.

If Europe was the theatre for the century of enlightenment it was also the setting for two world wars and some still partially unresolved dramas; these experiences should feed our thoughts and help us to develop a new humanist conscience. As in the drawing rooms of the 18th Century, we would like to debate together with the purpose of envisaging tomorrows’ world and take our destiny into our own hands.

Olivier VEDRINE

Professor at the IESEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille. Lecturer of the European Commission (TEAM-EUROPE France). President of The Atlantic-Ural College.

I am sending you the internet link to read the first issue of the “European Union Foreign Affairs Journal” (EUFAJ) of which I am editor. You may know that “Libertas” –European institute mentioned has nothing to do with the Irish movement “Libertas.” It is a German Pro-European think-tank run by a friend Hans-Juergen Zahorka, chief editor of EUFAJ, who was a member of the European parliament and like myself, a Lecturer at the European Commission (TEAM EUROPE). This journal is a cooperation between “Libertas” and my think-tank the “Atlantic-Ural College”.

In this first issue you will see my article on Russia and my Stand Point (that will be for each issue). You will see also the publicities of my ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT MBA and of my book!

Let’s discover the “Journal of European Union Foreign Affairs” (EUFAJ) :

http://www.libertas-institut.eu/de/EUFAJ/no1_2009.pdf

Sincerely,

Olivier VEDRINE

Russia is the biggest country in the world stretching over 9,000 kilometres and with a surface area 35 times that of France (17 million square kilometres).  Russia has an unmatched wealth of natural resources and a population of over 140 million (eighth most populated country in world rankings).  These parameters alone make it a major player on the international geopolitical scene.

73% of the population live in urban areas and 80% of these inhabitants live to the west of the Ural mountain chain and consequently in Europe.  Russia boasts one of the best literacy rates in the world (99.5% in 1999) and despite the many ethnic groups speaking more than 70 dialects, most inhabitants are bi-lingual.  The fact that Russia is a federation allows it to manage the diverse ethnic groups spread over the vast area of the country. The population is young with 75% under the age of 45, however the death rate currently exceeds the birth rate despite policies introduced which favour the young.

The climate in Russia is subject to extremes between summer and winter months resulting in an average annual temperature of minus 5.5°C. The seasons of spring and autumn are almost non-existent.  The lowest recorded temperature of minus 70°C was taken in the town of Verkhoiansk and the average winter temperature hovers at around minus 25°C. Average summer temperatures vary between 20°C in the north and 38°C in the south. 

The climate has a direct influence on lifestyle and economic activity.  In some areas, the permafrost, which means that the soil sub-strata never de-frosts, creates financial and technical constraints for the construction and petroleum extraction industry.  

Since the break up of the USSR in 1990, Russia has had to face two major challenges: the transition from a closed Soviet economy to a liberal capitalist economy and to the acceptance of an economy ruled by the market resulting from supply and demand.

Russia is a member of the G8 group of industrialized countries with its economy ranking eleventh in the world according to the World Bank statistics of 2007.

Russia experienced an average growth in GDP of 6.8% from 1999 to 2004(after a financial crisis in 1998).  However its economic performance is based largely on the success of its natural resource industries, especially oil and gas.  This has led to the company Gazprom becoming a key element in Russian foreign policy.

90% of Russian oil is extracted from two major basins: Western Siberia (Tyumen area, 2144 kilometres east of Moscow) and the Volga-Ural (the Samara region, 860 kilometres south-east of Moscow and the autonomous Republic of Tatarstan).

Russia is classified as an emerging market but it qualifies as a special case for various reasons:

Firstly, it is the only country in this category not to be a newly industrialised country: for much of the 20th century it was the ideological and industrial heart of the military superpower, the USSR.

Secondly, it is a country which makes up a part of continental Europe. The capital city Moscow is situated before the Ural mountain range and it shares a common history with other European countries. 

Thirdly, Russia, unlike other emerging market economies, has an ageing population in common with its European neighbours. This decline will soon become a problematic issue when considering the growing Chinese presence in Eastern Siberia.

Politically, Russia is governed by a democratically elected government with a semi-presidential system.  The president and the prime-minister both have important roles regarding domestic decision making and in foreign policy.

For many reasons, often unjustifiable, Russia instils fear in Western countries, who would like to see this newly democratized country behaving according to the political norms of the old democracies of Western Europe.  We must beware of making ethnically based political judgments of third countries. In the case of Russia, the trials and tribulations of the past 20 years appear to have been forgotten.  The end of the USSR brought anarchy and the collapse of Russian influence in the Yeltsin years, a fall in living standards and demographic decline. A new state was created with the election of President Putin heralding a successful return to the international political scene (G8 membership) and real economic success (several years of high economic growth).  We must leave it for the Russians themselves to choose their path to democracy and the time to develop their own democratic model.  None of the old Western democratic models can be transferred from one state to another. Just imagine imposing French style democracy on the British and vice versa.  Russian democracy is targeted repeatedly by Western media, often demonstrating ignorance of Russian history and culture.  

This lack of comprehension leads to misunderstandings which can only be negative for Europe as a whole and could lead to a new political barrier running across the heart of Europe.  In these times of global geopolitical uncertainty we do not need new divisions in Europe but a tightening of the ranks behind a united front!

The history of Russia began in the 9th century in an area shared today by Ukraine, Belarus, and Western Russia. It was the time of the Kievan Rus’, founded by the Varangians, Vikings who came from Scandinavia and who were ruled by the Rurik dynasty. The Kievan Rus’ ruled over a federated state of oriental tribes with slave status.  In 988 AD, the Grand Prince Vladimir converted to Orthodox Christianity, the religion of the Byzantine Empire. Orthodoxy became the state religion and a major factor in maintaining Russian national unity. The thirteenth century Mongol-Tatar invasion put an end to the Kievan Rus’ and began the State of the Golden Horde. This state was founded by the Mongols in the south of the Volga and all the defeated Russian Principalities were forced to pay tribute and recognize Mongol Sovereignty which lasted for three centuries. Russia considers, certainly rightly, that its suffering and sacrifice under Mongol rule saved Europe from the Tatar- Mongol Yoke of servitude and allowed Western Europe to enjoy freedom and prosperity giving it the history it has today.

From the 13th to the 16th centuries, one Russian Principality, Muscovy, whose Capital was Moscow, took the lead in the revolt against the Mongols and created Russia.  This marked the beginning of the end of Mongol rule and the integration of the independent Russian principalities of Novgorod in 1478 and Pskov city-state in 1510.

Ivan IV also called Ivan the Terrible was the first prince to call himself Tsar seizing the remaining Mongolian kingdoms and extending the territory of Russia to the East without any obstacle.  Ivan IV considered himself to be the sole heir of Prince Vladimir.

Troubled times followed the end of the dynasty of the descendents of Rurik (dating from the Varangian Princes), until the creation of the Romanov dynasty in 1613. An era of great rulers followed: Peter the Great (1685-1725) who founded St Petersburg and declared it the new capital in 1712, symbolizing the openness of Russia to Europe.  Catherine II (1762-1796) called Catherine the Great, enlightened autocrat, patron of the arts, literature and education (based on the Encyclopaedia of Diderot and Alembert). She corresponded with Voltaire and invited Diderot to the royal Court. The Russian nobility became westernized through the influence of German philosophers and the French language. Some were enthusiastic about the ideas of the era of Enlightenment and even by the French Revolution. 

Russia entered the 19th century as a great powerful nation thanks to the reign of Alexander 1st who played an important role in the Napoleonic wars and the Holy Alliance.  Alexander II (1818-1881) also referred to as Alexander the Liberator, attempted to reform Russian society by proposing changes to the constitution in order to bring about the abolition of serfdom, reform to the judicial system and the laws of censorship, changes to the electoral system and even the military. He was assassinated for his efforts on the 13th March 1881 before he had realized his dreams. Alexander III ascended to the throne following the assassination of his father and led a series of contra-reforms in reaction to his fathers` violent death.  During his reign, industrialization of Russia grew rapidly thanks to foreign investment and the expansion of the rail network to over 30000 kilometres of track by 1890.  Russia continued to expand its sphere of influence covering China and Korea right up to Japan.

The defeat suffered by Russia in the war against Japan triggered the first Russian revolution in 1905.  Nicholas II (1868-1918) who became Tsar in 1894 was obliged to seek other opportunities for expansion of its sphere of influence.

Russia entered the war against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 in defence of its Serbian ally.  The Russian forces attacked Eastern Poland and suffered humiliating defeat.  Social unrest erupted in February 1917 leading to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the declaration of a Russian republic.  The October Revolution triggered by the Bolshevik political party on the 25th October 1917 led to the execution of the Royal family on the 17th July 1918 at Yekaterinburg.  A civil war between the Bolsheviks and the White Russians (Republicans or Monarchists) lasting three years ended with victory for the Bolsheviks on the 22 December 1922.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was established with Russia as a member state.

In the ensuing period, the USSR became a world power and one of the victors of the Second World War. With end of the war in 1945, the USSR and the USA divided the world into two powerful political spheres.  The battle of Stalin-grad (January 1943) was a key turning point in the war bringing the Soviet army to Berlin.  Europe was divided in two and the so called Iron Curtain remained in place until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  On December 21st 1991 the CPSU was dissolved by Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union collapsed.  As the main successor of the USSR, Russia has its place in International Institutions and a permanent seat at the Security Council of the United Nations.  A political and economic union, the CIS was created in 1991 in an attempt to retain ties between former members of the USSR.

The election to power of President Putin in 2000 brought about a Russian revival and a return the world political scene, after the period of political and economic collapse marked by the Yeltsin years.

Today we see Russia re-instated as a great nation participating in international decision making and an important player in geopolitics. 

During the 1990`s, the West was judged to have hurt the feelings of the Russian people by underestimating them as a nation.  With the arrival of Putin in 2000 a deep distrust developed towards the European Union mostly as a result of the “Colour Revolutions” and the ensuing encroachment on the traditional Russian sphere of influence.  Before this time, the Kremlin had been seeking an arrangement with the EU to counter American influence in Europe especially concerning the missile shield project, which had served to deepen the humiliation felt by Russia after the collapse of the Warsaw pact.  The limits of Russian tolerance were reached with the case of Georgia and Ossetia, where the Georgian President Saakachvili was under the illusion that he could act with impunity due to alleged re-assurances of support from third countries.  The Russian response was rapid and meant to send an unequivocal warning to the USA and to certain European countries.  Russian emerged from this political crisis with its place in the Caucasus firmly repositioned and its political role as the dominant player in the area reaffirmed.  It is without any doubt the first combined military and political success story for Russia since the collapse of the USSR.

If we wish to avoid a face-off between the European Union and Russia and a new rift dividing Europe, we must seek to define a mutually agreeable space to work in together. Failure to do so will weaken the influence of Europe as a player on the stage of world geopolitics and give pleasure and advantage to our political and economic competitors.

We need to work together to build a strategic partnership using a model of the project based on the four “Common areas”. Following the Saint-Petersburg Summit in May 2003, Russia and the EU made a joint declaration for the creation and establishment of four common areas relating to, Economics, freedom, justice and security, external security and research.  The road maps of the four areas were adopted at the Moscow Summit on the 10th May 2005 due to the personal involvement of the Russian President Vladimir Putin.  These were for Brussels and Moscow, real working documents, less restrictive than International treaties and brought an important political dimension to co-operation between Russia and the EU.  Whilst certain criticisms have been directed at these roadmaps, they do nonetheless serve as a starting point for the building of a truly Pan- European shared space in economic, political and cultural issues.

A Europe reflecting the vision of General Charles de Gaulle: From the Atlantic to the Ural passing through the axis of Paris-Berlin-Moscow!
 

Olivier VEDRINE

Professor at the IESEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille.
Lecturer of the European Commission (TEAM-EUROPE France).
President of The Atlantic-Ural College.

On May 7^th and 8^th , the Czech presidency of the European Union was able to reunite  the key players of Eastern Europe in the hopes of reestablishing ties between the EU and its ex-Soviet Union neighbors (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine) to help reinforce their independence and assure new sources of energy supplies.  The EU is trying, on a basis of pragmatic cooperation, to maintain European presence in these countries, which has lead to speculation that it is about to encroach on the sphere of Russian strategical interests.  But appearances are deceiving.

To begin, Europe does not have a strategic global vision, and it would be wrong to view the whole new oriental partnership as an attempt to diminish Russian influence.  Two factors support this point of view:

-         Firstly, the EU is not yet a powerful political/military force and prefers to cooperate with Russia in the handling of crises;

-         Secondly, the economic ties between Russia and its immediate neighbors are sufficiently strong, and the latter doesn’t want to risk such a market, which absorbs their industrial and agricultural products as well as millions of migrant workers, for a project whose future is still uncertain.

Although certain elements of the partnership remain promising, it is a long way off from making a useful contribution to the emergence of an economic pole in geopolitical pluralism within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It is more likely destined to promote relations between the EU and its partners and reinforce their integration in different means of cooperation but at the same level of interaction as with Russia. It is more a matter of complementarity of cooperation than of competition and more about reinforced integration than membership. It is for this reason that the affected States of the ex-USSR adopt a more reasonable approach even if Ukraine still hopes for full membership pure and simple.  The greatest weakness of this partnership is in fact the lack of means for its goals and above all, its incentives in terms of membership. 

Also, the new international context, which is linked to the multilateral approach and to the more pragmatic international policy of the new Obama Administration, tends to put Russia at ease. The new president is fixed on two priorities – Iran and Afghanistan – and is looking, in contrast to his predecessor, to avoid unnecessary provocations by notably abandoning the pursuit of the new version of the containment policy. This policy is aimed at reducing Russian sway by promoting “revolutions of colors”in the ex-Soviet sphere of influence, which were considered to be “natural steps” in the strategic vision of the Kremlin. This approach seems to suit Moscow, as it would be more advantageous for it to adopt a cooperative approach under the condition that it maintains its dominant position in its old guarded domain.  Behind this point of view, one can find a point of equilibrium in the relations between Russia and the United States. For example Washington renounced its unilateral initiative of antimissile shields in favor of a common project with Moscow, in which they engage in problematic affairs, such as those found in Iran and Afghanistan. This could allow for a reconfiguration of the power struggle, and it would assure Russia that it remains the major force in that region, allowing everyone a piece of the pie. Indeed, the help that Russia could bring the Iranian question would be enormous and fundamental for regional and international security. Iran seeks to become a regional power, putting itself in competition with NATO member and EU candidate Turkey, in order to, among other things, contain the influence of the UnitedState. The first trip of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after his reelection took him as invitee to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Yekaterinburg in the Ural. This organization was created in 1996 by Russia and China to be an alternative to NATO and in response to US influence in central Asia. Four central Asian countries are members, all the former Soviet republics: Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Iran holds an observer status. It is important to note, that in October 2007, the Caspian Summit in Teheran, held during the peak of the nuclear crisis, has been a success for Iran as well as for Russia.

            This agreeable arrangement with Russia could also contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Indeed, one goal of the Obama Administration is to improve the American image in the Muslim world. In this context, Turkey is an ally not to be ignored in connecting American interests of becoming a regional player in the Middle East and also in the South Caucasus. Hence the American incentives to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia, that have been broken off in 1993 following the occupation of 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan by Armenian military forces. But this issue pre-requires diplomatic progress in finding a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which demands a more active role of the United States and Russia. However, the Russian motivations are different: first, by excluding such a possibility for the resolution of the Ossetian and Abkhazian conflict, Moscow continues its efforts to bring the Saakhashvili regime to its knees, again to ensure direct access to Armenia, its stronghold in the South Caucasus; then in the setting of a potential rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, the Kremlin thinks about balancing its relations with Azerbaijan, while encouraging them to sell the bulk of its natural gas to the Russian gas giant "Gazprom", which aims to challenge the European gas pipeline "Nabucco".

            Contrary to what one might think, Azerbaijan has not attempted to use its energy weapon as a means of diplomatic pressure in the process of normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. But it suggested to lead the two negotiations in a single process and to push the progress in resolving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh towards the rapprochement between the two countries. The historical and cultural ties that bind the Turkish people to those of Azerbaijan and the popular reaction that Ankara's policy has sparked in both countries, has made the Turkish government aware that without eliminating the causes that led to the closing of the borders, no action can be taken to remedy the effects. This position has relieved Baku and “dispelled all suspicions" as declared by the President Ilham Aliyev, following the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister on May 13, 2009. Azerbaijan considers its demand legitimate due to the fact that 20% of its territories are still under Armenian occupation. It has called on Turkey and the international community as a whole to adopt a common position and to stand firm in this situation, rather than to consolidate the Armenian position at the round table negotiations demanding open borders between Turkey and Armenia.

Azerbaijan has yet to give in to Russian requests to purchase all of its gas as they are looking to ensure the security of their resource routes by diversifying the pipelines in multiple directions. This is the reason for which, in the past, they postponed the exploitation of the second phase of the Shah Deniz well, expected to produce over 16 billion cubic meters of natural gas per annum. Under the circumstances, Azerbaijan, which already exports gas to Turkey and Greece, was favorable towards the “Nabucco” pipeline project to transport the majority of its gas, although they can no longer infinitely await the Europeans. Furthermore, with its increased gas production, it is in need of markets and competitive prices which only Russia is taking the initiative to offer. During President Medvedev’s visit to Baku on the 29^th of June 2009, Gazprom proceeded to sign an agreement of purchase with the Azerbaijanis state petrol company (SOCAR) concerning 500 million cubic meters of gas as of the 1^st of January 2010. For Baku, this contract is based on commercial considerations with prices as high as 350 dollars per 1000 cubic meters of gas. For the moment though, the volume in question is too insignificant to be a fatal blow by depriving “Nabucco” of a reliable and vital source. In any case, the danger is not far off if the Europeans do not soon decide the fate of their projects and do not rapidly offer purchasing contracts to Azerbaijan. Wasting time could, in effect, put an end to this project. Even more so as the key actor in the region, which is Azerbaijan, constitutes a strategic transit zone for Central Asia which is among the top suppliers of “Nabucco”. Azerbaijan’s eventual change of course could incite the Central Asian countries, such as Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, to turn to Asia instead.  Let us be reminded that after the recent explosion on the pipeline between Turkmenistan and Russia, Turkmenistan has been made more aware than even of the vulnerability of their dependence on their large neighbor to the north. It is no coincidence that Turkmenistan’s authorities have recently proposed new opportunities to western companies in the exploitation of hydro-carbons. In this colossal game, the realization of “Nabucco” does not depend on Russian opposition with their competing projects such as “South Stream”, but largely on the engagement of European partners. In this relationship, the European Union has two strategic imperatives, the first being an improved level of cooperation with Russia, which is part of Eastern Europe, and the second being the continuation of the adhesion process for Turkey. It is in the strategic, balanced position that the right path can be found to its policies and the defense of its energy interests.

Olivier VEDRINE

President of the Atlantic-Ural College

Paris, FRANCE

Lecturer of the European Commission

(TEAM EUROPE France)

Fazil Zeynalov                                                         

Political scientist                                             

Baku, Azerbaijan

This text is also available at: http://blog.multipol.org/post/2009/08/01/ANALYSE-%3A-The-Oriental-Partnership-the-Geopolitical-Stakes-and-Azerbaijan

To address my trips to Azerbaijan, I must begin with a small prologue. The summer had already begun in Paris, as I walked along; bathed in the brilliant sunshine of one of those rare days our capital occasionally offers us, suddenly I receive a phone call.

- Hello Olivier! It is Jean-Yves Chevalier. How are you? What are your plans for this summer? Would you like to come to Baku in Azerbaijan?

Classes were over, the business school and university students were all on holiday, so I was free. Baku, Azerbaijan, the Caucus, and the Caspian Sea: the destination seemed full of adventure to me. My answer was simple.

- I am coming!

 Joyfully, I went off to inform my friends of my future destination, most of them, knowing little or nothing about the country and out of ignorance, warned me of all the dangers of the far off, mystical land! Nothing could be more motivating. Faced with all the comments full of apprehensions, my enthusiasm grew stronger!

My first trip:

It is the end of August, it is morning and the sun has risen. I am at Charles de Gaulle airport, impatient to get on the airplane to Baku.

After a few hours of flight, it is evening when we arrive at Heydar Aliyev airport, a taxi awaits us. The powerful German sedan transports us to the Hyatt hotel along the motorway bordered by fields of derricks.

For the first part of this foremost trip, my colleague Jean-Yves Chevalier and I were asked to express consecutive opinions to the answers of the “Work group for the implementation of international standards in matters concerning Human rights in Azerbaijan,” concerning the opinions and propositions of the OSCE-ODHIR and the Commission of Venice of the Council of Europe relative to the additions and amendments to the electoral code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The working document, the report upon which we reflected, was of great quality and the ensemble of NGO’s and Foundations of Azerbaijan, through their ideas, demonstrated and proved to us that a process of democratization was already in place.

This country, oh so interesting on a cultural and historic level, is situated on the ancient silk road. One imagines, while crossing the old city of Baku, the arrival of the caravans and their halts in the caravan saraïs and the history of Marco Polo returns to us from a distant place in our memory.

Today, the situation of Azerbaijan is strategic and leads us to understand the political vision of this country which falls under continuity by integration in European institutions and a diplomacy which successfully reconciles a pro-Western orientation and good relationships with Russia. This policy allowed stability, economic progress thanks to the oil incomes injected, which caused the increase in the industrial production and thus an improvement in the living standards of the inhabitants.

The second part of this trip was marked by an expedition to the south of the country, towards the city of Lankaran which borders the Caspian Sea. The journey was extraordinary and allowed me to whiteness the extreme diversity of the landscapes and climate. The hot, dry climate of the flat deserts, where we crossed a sea of salt, left way to forests carpeting high mountains full of thick magnificent vegetation and comfortable temperatures, further up the mountains the vegetation thinned leading us to imagine the harsh climate that prevails in the heights.

Throughout this first trip, I was met with grand hospitality, both by the officials and the citizens. I witnessed the welcoming attitudes of the population as a whole and their pacifistic nature in their willingness to interact with the traveler that I was. They are a people proud of their past and their extensive history as I was able to witness in their numerous museums, one of which was situated in a small village on the Iranian border. They are a friendly people who accompany the beauty of their landscapes with dignity.

My excursion to the south lasted but a few days and was followed by my return to Baku and then Paris.

My second trip:

On my second trip to Azerbaijan, I was an international observer for the October 2008 presidential elections, and as always I was accompanied by my dear colleague, Jean-Yves Chevalier. My role was to go to the voting stations and ensure that the voting processes were followed correctly. At the hotel, the observers are divided by geographic zones and/or by cities. I was assigned to Guba, a city located in the north of the country near the border with Russia.

The morning envelopes Baku, the road to Guba is under construction, so I am given a four wheel drive Toyota. The team accompanying me is young and dynamic. The trip is long and hard but the beauty of the landscapes here too is breathtaking.

After a few visits to voting stations within the city, we decided to head for the mountains, the high Caucus which we read about in adventure novels. Our objective was the highest village in all of Azerbaijan at an altitude of about 3000 meters. The path is reputed to be all but smooth. In effect, we would travel on tar roads for a small distance before continuing on half-gravel, half-mud tracks. These tracks wound through the mountains, along cliffs, over summits, and finally plunging down into the deep, magnificent valleys. The mountain sides are dotted with a few habitations which, one can imagine, are well organized to face the rugged, unforgiving mountain climate. One of my companions tells me that this is wolf territory. Car trouble seems quit undesirable right now…

First we traverse a thickly forested area. Then, we emerge from the trees to a landscape which appears to have been pealed by the icy winds, we see a few sheep, some homes built into the mountain sides, and finally, the highest village in Azerbaijan appears before us at the end of the track. The locals are farmers and breeders. Russia is only a few kilometers away. They are happy and proud to welcome us. Their smiles light up their faces, in their eyes we can see the hardships of mountain life. Their hospitality, as in the rest of the country, is a way of life. We are the first Observers to sign the books in the voting stations. One of the villagers makes a telephone call to signal our presence. Democracy and its voting slips have arrived in the mountains of the high Caucus. We take a few pictures with the director of the local school in which the voting station has been set up. It is time to leave, as it seems the trip back down the treacherous track is safer during the day…

We return to Baku and take part in the debriefing along with the other observers. The meetings, press conferences and interviews follow. There are always the walks through the beautiful old city of Baku and the hospitality of our Azeri friends to end this trip in the most agreeable way.

My third trip:

My third trip was the shortest. Jean-Yves and I participated in an international press conference on the referendum of March 2009. On this trip I was able to establish collaboration between IPAG Paris and the Khazar University in Baku so as to offer a double diploma in the new academic year: an MBA on energy.

Following these different trips, I invite my friends in France to adopt a different view of Azerbaijan. I always insist on this when I discuss the beauty of the landscapes, the hospitality, the pride and the kindness of this pacifistic people.

Olivier VEDRINE

PS: The program of the MBA Energy for which I am responsible is on the IPAG website: http://www.ipag.fr/en/home/programmes/mba/energy-sustainable-development-management-mba.html

NB: Mr. Jean-Yves CHEVALIER, International Consultant, Honorary President of the ACEDS http://aceds.fr/

Will the results of the European elections be characterized by the great victory of the extremes? Will the economic crisis push European citizens to turn towards simplistic solutions from the past? Within its member states, the EU can see the return of nationalistic fallback movements. The flourishing economy of growth did not erase these old derivatives, making the political Union appear more than desirable.

Europe was paralyzed for fifty years by both the Cold War and the occupation of Eastern Europe by the USSR. After the fall of the Soviet model, came the explosion of Yugoslavia, this conflict threw the south-east of the Balkans into a fratricidal war for more than ten years. NATO and the international community had to intervene to put an end to this tragedy. This war was sparked by the use of religious and ethnic differences by politicians who sought to reach their own personal goals.

Within the EU, the return of nationalism on a political level can often be explained by the fear for the loss of national identity due to the expansion of Europe as well as globalization. The lack of politicization of the European debate over the last few years helped fuel these fears. Thus the proposal of a political vision for Europe is urging, a grand and noble social project.

The phenomenon of the return of nationalism has nothing to do with the extremism of the 1930’s. To begin with, these movements did not appear in the industrial cities hit by unemployment but rather in the prosperous region, home to the bourgeoisie. There we could find low level executives and employees of dynamic SME’s (Small and Medium sized Enterprises) or employees of the tourism sector, which represents a lucrative economic activity. Already, this “neo poujadism” saw only waste and exploitation of its labor in the redistribution on a state or European level. At the time, “the extreme right exploited the egoism of a wealthy electorate which sought only to defend its privileges and which was not at all concerned with solidarity.” (Vincent de Coorebyter, director of the centre for research and sociopolitical information.)

These movements were born during an economically prosperous age. What would happen to us if the crisis we are currently undergoing was to endure? What if the EU did not meet the expectations of its member states? An outburst?

To begin with we must respond in a collective, European way to this crisis with a very pedagogic explanation of the decisions taken on behalf of the citizens and parallel to this, create a desire for Europe: Europe must make us dream!

How to make people dream in order to make them join?

“An important psychological factor also contributed to the imperial power: no assertion of identity could compete with the civis romanus sum (“I am a Roman citizen”), source of pride and of aspiration for many. Finally conceded to the subjects of non-Roman birth, the coveted status of “citizen” expressed a cultural superiority which made expansion of the empire a true mission. Wherever it was imposed, the law of Rome found its legitimacy and encouraged those who lived by it to wish for assimilation in the imperial structures. The cultural superiority, obvious to the eyes of the Masters and acknowledged by the subjects, reinforced the established order.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski: le Grand Echiquier, l’Amérique et le reste du Monde).

This Empire, one of the historical cradles of Europe, proposed to the world a federative civilization project. The European Union must, for the sake of its member state citizens, elaborate a new society so as to federate, without reviving an imperial vision. A social humanistic project could fuel the creation and development of a constitution. It is an opportunity to seize for our continent in a world that is becoming multi-polar. There are multiple development and social models and the primary objective is to co-exist comfortably. The European Union could propose a project that would combat instability (essential in times of crisis!), that would respect the environment and that would allow each citizen to indulge in their own search for happiness. We must admit, in a pragmatic way, that the market economy is the only model that works, even though, as the current crisis has shown us, we must rethink it so that the economy serves man and not the other way round.

Let us hope that the destiny of the EU will differ from that of an ancient Greek League which, once the Persian peril gone, collapsed.

We have all the means necessary to become a great power, able to influence in the future of the world and thus our own future. We are still missing the political will; the crisis can be a chance to impose this political will. The Lisbon Treaty is necessary to advance in this success story which is the European construction. Furthermore, a constitution would be the zenith of this long road, it would have the same strength and would symbolize the same as the constitutions proposed in France in 1791 and the United States in 1787.

"If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God." – George Washington. Comments at the First Continental Congress on May 14, 1787 at Philadelphia .

This desire for Europe must be one of the major objectives of the political debates concerning the European elections; it will create the necessary tools for the construction of a fully-fledged European Union, and effectively oppose all types of extremism.

Olivier VEDRINE

While reading the newspapers, listening to the radio or watching television, we notice the abundance of opinions on the crisis we are facing as well as the numerous experts ready to explain the downfalls of our market economy. It seems to me that there are two pitfalls which should be avoided in this reasoning:

- the first being the belief that we will emerge from this crisis in one or two years as it is only a cyclical period of adjustment; - the second being the idea of a “reformed economy,” which would give us the possibility to radically change the economy and carry on to a new, radiant tomorrow.

The first point of view is no longer widely spread, I’m afraid that the second, on the other hand, is in full bloom. It would be seriously dangerous to tell the many victims of this crisis that all of their problems can be solved by quickly applying radical new rules in hopes of achieving a new, more “humane,” economy.

If we are truly interested in finding a solution, we must direct our attention to the definition of capitalism itself. We should be told less about the end of this system and more about its reformation. Since the 1980’s, finance has taken the reins of the economy and virtualized operations (i.e. derivative markets). The true economy though is not virtual, it is real, and it is the value of labor. I produce and I sell a good that exists: this is the moral sense of capitalism.

It is not the vocation of the financier to run the system on his own, it is on the activities of entrepreneurs that everything depends. Banks should return to their founding objectives: to serve industry! That is the only reform we can expect from our economy. One cannot expect capitalism to erase social inequality or reform the health system, that is not its role and never will be. That duty belongs to the state and to politicians.

This does not mean that we should not think about adaptations that could be made to the system, to future stakes, and to the modern world. I believe that there is a necessity for the return of the state/or states as regulators under certain circumstances that remain to be defined. May be the establishment of “New Ideals” in Europe, as in the United States could be an answer. What is sure, is the absolute necessity, current and future, to manage the consequences of the crisis. In effect, the failure of reflationary policies will serve as arguments to policies that promote rapid solutions which are always disastrous. From protectionism to nationalism they will drive us towards a result which we must now avoid. For example, if Europe fails in its reflationary policies, as Europe can only face this challenge as a whole as no state can do it alone for lack of means, we can only imagine the kind of arguments that would be provided for promoters of certain radical ideas. The result could be the end of the European Union. On the other hand, this may be a chance for the European Union, if it succeeds in protecting our societies through its decisions, to rise as a new important actor, primarily for its citizens but also for the rest of the world. The sum of the tools needed to face future issues and problems could only be put together by nations and/or groups of nations. May be through this unexpected consequence of the crisis we will see the emergence of a true international community.

After the necessary return of the state and politicians in the economy, we must now analyze what the structural possibilities are for our economies to better understand the changes. These begin with the requirement to increase investments in the research sector to benefit researchers. Primarily, a company needs a product to sell which is the result of a process of research and development. There can be no innovative, solid, and lucrative companies without high quality research. Tomorrows products are in our laboratories (which is favorable) or in the laboratories of our competitors (which is less favorable). There lie our future profits and thus our future employment. That is what will also oblige us to invest in new technology. The transformation of the automobile industry, which will undergo a crisis similar to that of the steel industry in the 70’s and 80’s, will only advance through the application of the following: clean cars, with lower consumption rates and /or built entirely from recycled materials, as well as being crammed with innovative navigation technology.

Efforts in the renewable energy domain also create wealth and employment. The use of new forms of energy (solar, biomass, geothermic…) in real-estate development, require new types of industry and thus provide employment. Environmental issues are already forcing us to change our lifestyles which will require us to create companies in the near future to satisfy the demand for new materials, new energies, and for new forms of consumption.

Another issue must be considered so as to adapt ourselves to the new situation: the role of new actors as possible sources of ideas, complimentary to the functions of the state. Through instruments such as the internet, which has indeed lead to the globalization of information, democracy as we know it is in metamorphosis. Citizens or groups of citizens, through associations as well as NGO’s and foundations, must and will participate in the resolution of this crisis, especially when it enters its social phase. To our societies, this may prove to be a formidable democratic renewal and the debates that will follow will bring about change in the way states themselves govern. Here, with the sum of these new actors and with the state, there will be a great debate of ideas where the appropriate place of morality and ethics in the economy and in capitalism will be able to be approached.

This crisis can be an opportunity for Europe. In effect, if this occurs, through a visible cohesion of its member states, Europe will find the echo of its citizens more than favorable. The EU will begin a new chapter in its history where, united and interdependent, strengthened by a large democratic area with a renewed economy, it will be able to face future challenges and crises and in a multi-polar world, make its voice and propositions heard.

Olivier VEDRINE

The creation of the European Union was initiated by France and Germany as a result of the two World Wars. Essential to its growth was the addition of other ancient nations who had themselves been in conflict, mostly with each other, in the past. The primary objective was to achieve mutual cultural respect as well as integrate their differences so as to avoid further crises and numb painful memories in order to achieve reconciliation. One must never forget this element which is essential to understanding the European Union’s message of hope: unite to live together in peace.

The European continent and its peoples were influenced, in antiquity, by two great cultures and civilizations: the Greek civilization to begin with and later on the Roman civilization. The Roman Empire has remained in our history as an example of power and unity, of prestige and splendor.

From its early creation, the European Union integrated different cultures: Latin, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon. By opening to the East we have integrated the Slavic cultures.

Now, the question of Turkeys membership has arisen and, with this, the possibility of the European Union becoming a truly universal model. By integrating this large Muslim country, we would send a potent message of tolerance to the rest of the world. By doing so, we would effectively put an end to the dangerous theory of the “clash of civilizations.”

The established coexistence of our 27 member states is already an exceptional feat, never before achieved on our continent except under the rule of an authoritarian empire. Now, it is the nations and their peoples who choose to unite to build a common ground upon which we may live in peace, prosperity, and where we may pursue our happiness.

Now, we must ask ourselves, especially in this time of severe global crisis, about the direction of this political action to better understand this process and to continue it. This union of nations, peoples, and different cultures is currently of great geopolitical importance as there is much talk of multiculturalism worldwide. At the time when Western Europe encountered Eastern Europe and now as the question of going towards the Orient is ever more present.

At a time when big decisions that will involve all of humanity must be taken, on a global scale, Europe has an important message to propose, void of messianic imperialism and conquest, a message of respect and tolerance toward other civilizations.

During my lectures, I always tell my students that Europe is not only the European Union and I defend the idea that it is the Council of Europe and its 47 states that represent our grand and beautiful Europe: from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountain range! Europe is as large geographically as the beauty of its humanistic ideals. Is it not in the interest of the European Council to favor a democratic area with common law, organized around the European Convention for Human Rights? Is it not its goal to promote the cultural identity of Europe and its diversity?

We cannot hope for a better institution to begin work on a veritable democratic European area and on the construction of a grand European Union!

The clash of civilizations can be avoided as it is a concept, which is way too partial and biased, based on history. The political direction of the European Union must be thought out and organized as a model of universality to which one adheres liberally without exterior constraints.

Let us avoid idealism and technocratic diversions; we must begin by integrating the citizens in projects, not necessarily ostentatious, but foremost aiming to unify collective energies and to share competencies and know-how.

In political action, the question “why?” must regularly be repeated as it provides direction; with no political direction any construction, whichever it may be, is condemned to failure. The direction unites energies and channels the actions of the citizens and the states towards a well defined objective.

The message of “living together” established by the founding fathers of Europe must always be put forward to underline and remember the foundations of the European construction and to better understand the role it plays in the integration of different cultures.

These differences, essentially our differences are an extraordinary wealth and a great challenge for the future. Humanity is one and must imperatively see itself as just that; this is the big project for our still young century.

That is the true message of Europe. No other model has been organized to incorporate so many different cultures. If the European model were to fail, the resulting message to the rest of the world would be catastrophic. Thus, we have the duty, toward our children and the generations to come, to bring to fruition this beautiful and noble construction.

Olivier VEDRINE