race by Nina nina

November 2007

14–15

FROZEN CONFLICTS RESOLUTION:

SECURITY AND STABILITY IN THE BLACK SEA REGION KYIV SECURITY FORUM

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

a platform for European security architecture

FROZEN CONFLICTS RESOLUTION:

SECURITY AND STABILITY IN THE BLACK SEA REGION 14-15 NOVEMBER 2007

FROM THE FOUNDER OF OPEN UKRAINE FOUNDATION

Arseniy YATSENYUK, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (21/03/2007–23/11/2007) This is the first forum during the whole history of independence when Ukraine has declared itself as one of the key donors for European and global security. Ukraine participates in 16 peacekeeping missions, and at one point up to three thousands Ukrainian peacekeepers were participating in such operations. Today this number is around one thousand. Ukraine is the country, which, even though it sounds paradoxical, has no experience in resolution of “frozen” conflicts, has no experience in settling regional conflicts. However, it has exceptionally important experience which is of additional significance — it has the experience of how not to prevent “frozen” regional conflicts from occurring on its territory. And this is one of the major achievements of the Ukrainian independent state.

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

FROM THE ORGANIZERS AND PARTNERS

Orysia LUTSEVYCH, Open Ukraine Foundation We are opening the forum for discussion of European security matters. Dialogue is the best approach for settling conflict, and we put this principle in the foundation of preparation for the Forum and its further development. We are pleased that our understanding that Ukraine could become a platform for discussion of European security concerns has found support among governmental and non-governmental actors in Europe and in the Black Sea region.

Thomas EYMOND-LARITAZ, Victor Pinchuk Foundation The paradox of conflict resolution in the Black Sea region is that usually it is discussed everywhere, except in the region. So it is usually in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, isn’t it? But now we are extremely happy that Open Ukraine Foundation took the role in organizing these meetings here, in Ukraine with all the main representatives of the different countries currently interested, unfortunately, by these conflicts.

Hryhoriy PEREPELYTSIA, Foreign Policy Research Institute “Frozen” conflicts are a security challenge not only for those states which have those conflicts on their territories, but also for all-European and regional security. Since we believe that European security is a collective and common phenomenon, we therefore have to take joint efforts to deal with these challenges and threats to European security. In this regard, Ukraine has certain achievements, since it is one of the important contributors to peacekeeping operations. It is logical that along with these actions of our participation in conflict resolution we have to conduct certain analytical support for the resolution of problems connected with conflict settlement.

Vasyl ANDRIYKO, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Regional Office for Ukraine and Belarus Friedrich Ebert Foundation has experienced the most complications in work with youth organizations during its activities connected with Transdniestrian issues. It was extremely difficult to establish and support dialogue among youth organizations of Moldova and Transdniestria. Therefore, in our discussions today it is essential to consider not only external factors, but internal as well. During these fifteen years on the territories of the conflict zone, a new generation has grown up – a generation which was born and raised on these territories, and which in a few years will be voting in referenda and elections. It is important to look for possibilities to work on this internal factor.

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

FORUM AGENDA DAY 1 — WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2007 Venue: Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine, 2 Velyka Zhytomyrska Street (Conference hall, 2nd floor) 15:00–16:00

Participant registration and press accreditation

16:00–18:00

Forum welcome: Borys HUMENIUK, Rector, Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine Orysia LUTSEVYCH, Executive Director, Open Ukraine Foundation Opening address: Arseniy YATSENYUK, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Presentations: Nino BURJANADZE, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, Chairperson of the Parliament of Georgia Kalman MIZSEI, EU Special Representative for the Republic of Moldova Valeriy CHECHELASHVILI, Secretary General, Organization for Democracy and Economic Development GUAM Murat SUNGAR, First Deputy of Secretary General of the Permanent International Secretariat, Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) Vasile SHOVA, Minister of Reintegration, Republic of Moldova Nikoloz VASHAKIDZE, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Georgia Milen KEREMEDCHIEV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Republic of Bulgaria Simonas SHATUNAS, Advisor to the President of Republic of Lithuania David KRAMER, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, US Department of State

18:30 –20:30 Forum Reception hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine at “Hyatt Regency Kyiv”, (5, Alla Tarasova St.)

Day 2 — THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007 Venue: Hotel Rus, 4, Hospitalna St., conference hall

8:30–9:00

Participant registration and press accreditation

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

9:00–9:20

Welcome from Forum partners: Orysia LUTSEVYCH, Open Ukraine Foundation Hryhoriy PEREPELYTSIA, Foreign Policy Research Institute Thomas EYMOND-LARITAZ, Victor Pinchuk Foundation Dr. Stefan CHROBOT, Friedrich Ebert Foundation

9:20–11:00

Discussion Session I FROZEN CONFLICTS IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: REVIEW OF EXISTING MECHANISMS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION Moderator: Olexandr SUSHKO, Deputy Director, Center for Peace, Conversion and Foreign Policy of Ukraine

Suggested topics: · Transnistria problem · Georgia- Abkhazia- South Ossetia knot · Dilemma of Nagorno-Karabakh · Balkan Lessons

9:20–10:10

Expert Presentations: David KRAMER, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, Department of State, USA Sergey SARGSYAN, Senior Expert, SPECTRUM Center for Strategic Analysis, Armenia Tofik Fuad oglu MUSAYEV, Head, Department of Foreign Policy Planning and Strategic Studies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Azerbaijan Claire DELESSARD, Senior Analyst, International Crisis Group, Georgia – Azerbaijan Andriy VESELOVSKY, Deputy Foreign Minister, Ukraine

10:10–11:00 11:00–11:20

Discussion

11:20–12:40

Discussion Session II KEY VIEWS ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION FROM THE US, RUSSIA AND EU

Coffee Break

Moderator: Valeriy CHALY, Deputy Director General, Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies named after Olexander Razumkov, Ukraine

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

FORUM AGENDA

Suggested topics · Peacekeeping in the Black Sea Region – new challenges for EU · Perspectives of conflict resolution in the Balkans and the postSoviet space – view from Washington · Russian interests in “frozen” conflicts – views on possible resolution

11:20–12:00

Expert Presentations: Sergei MARKEDONOV, Head of Interethnic Relations Group, Institute for Political and Military Analysis, Russian Federation Jeffrey SIMON, Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University, USA Andrei POPOV, Executive Director, Foreign Policy Association, Moldova

12:00–12:40 12:40–14:00

Discussion

14:00–15:40

Discussion Session III CONTRIBUTION OF MAJOR GLOBAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION – UN, OSCE, & BSEC

Lunch (Hotel Rus, 4, Hospitalna St.)

Moderator: Rainer RUGE, Council of the European Union irectorate-General for External and Politico-Military Affairs

Suggested topics · UN: from lessons learnt in the Balkans to a new strategy of conflict resolution in the South Caucasus · Assessing effectiveness of OSCE missions in the areas of “frozen” conflicts · Potential role of BSEC in conflict prevention and resolution · EU BAM

14:00–14:40

Expert Presentations: Francis O’DONNELL, United Nations Resident Coordinator in Ukraine Oleksandr PAVLYUK, Head of External Cooperation, OSCE Secretariat Panagiota MANOLI, Director of Studies and Research, International Center for Black Sea Studies| Greece Antti HARTIKAINEN, Deputy Head, EU BAM mission

14:40–15:40

Discussion

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

15:40–16:00

Coffee Break

16:00–17:20

Discussion Session IV EUROATLANTIC DIMENSION OF “FROZEN” CONFLICTS RESOLUTION: POTENTIAL ROLE OF NATO Moderator: Hryhoriy PEREPELYTSIA, Director, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Ukraine

Suggested topics · Impact of NATO engagement in the Balkans for peacekeeping strategy of the Alliance · Alliance’s new missions — lessons from Afghanistan · NATO and post-Soviet space conflicts — opportunities for cooperation

16:00–16:30

Expert Presentations: Borys TARASYUK, Director, Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, Ukraine Artem MALGIN, Counselor to the Rector, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Russian Federation James SHERR, Conflict Studies Research Centre, Defence Academy of the UK, Great Britain

16:30–17:20

Discussion

17:20–18:00

CLOSING SESSION LESSONS AND GUIDANCE FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION: STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE Moderator: Ivanna KLYMPUSH-TSINTSADZE, Deputy Director of Programs, Open Ukraine Foundation, Ukraine

Expert Presentations: Julian CHIFU, Executive Director, Center for Conflict Prevention and Early Warning, Romania Huseyn BAGCI, Professor, Department of International Relations, Middle Eastern Technical University, Turkey Boris KUZNETSOV, Director, Center of International and Regional Studies, St.Petersburg, Russian Federation Hryhoriy PEREPELYTSIA, Director, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Ukraine

19:00–21:00

Farewell reception at “Opanas” Restaurant (10, Tereshchenkivska St.) KYIV SECURITY FORUM

EXPERT FOCUS

"...within the framework of international multilateral diplomacy there are very few efficient instruments. There are two elements in this regard. The first element is the structure itself of international organizations. However, there is also a second element. Because of the peculiarity of decision-making within international organizations, not all the member-states of these international organizations are implementing their own declarations about peace and stability. Therefore, international multilateral activity is one of those elements that require improvement..." Arseniy YATSENYUK, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

"...Economy is one of those driving forces which will provide the possibility to settle essential problemats within “frozen” regional conflicts. With regard to the economic component, from our perspective the role of international financial institutions should be enhanced, as well as their participation in the resolution of “frozen” regional conflicts..." "...The economic factor in such regional conflicts often is dependent on the behavior of the neighbors – the better we are cooperating on economic issues and on the issues of border-crossing and customs procedures, the better are the chances for a protracted conflict to be settled in a short time. We are talking about economic cooperation among neighboring states with those counties where such regional conflicts exist. Moreover, integration perspectives and perspectives for free trade zones and infrastructure projects are additional elements for the economic component to play a crucial role in “frozen” conflicts resolution…"

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

From the written address to Forum participants:

"......I’m privileged to welcome the participants of the Kyiv Security Forum “Frozen Conflicts Resolution, Security and Stability in the Black Sea Region”. The international community is well aware of the aspirations of the member countries of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation to turn the Black Sea into the region of peace, stability and prosperity. I am confident that your Forum can make an input to the ongoing policy deliberations on enhancing the contribution of the BSEC, including its parliamentary dimension, to strengthening security and stability in the region. I wish you fruitful discussions and success in your work for the sake of peace, security and prosperity of the peoples of the BSEC member states..."

Nino BURJANADZE, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, Chairperson of the Parliament of Georgia

"...Ukraine is truly a key European country, a regional leader which can and does play a crucial role in helping to find viable solutions to the so-called “frozen” conflicts. All the countries that have “frozen” conflicts on their territories are very special partners for the European Union and the European Neighbourhood Policy. This Policy is there to help them along in their political and economic reforms, bringing them closer to the European Union through fostering their increasing compatibility. The ENP is there to provide a robust toolbox, which, if used correctly, can help the countries of the region, making them more attractive to the populations of the conflict regions as is a special ever case in Georgia and Moldova..." Kalman MIZSEI, "...It is important to remember, that all conflicts are difEU Special Representative ferent due to their origins and the specific characteristics. One needs to avoid oversimplification and stereotypes. for the Republic of Moldova We cannot find a “one size fits all” solution to them..."

NOVEMBER 14, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM

EXPERT FOCUS

"...These

Valeriy CHECHELASHVILI, Secretary General, Organization for Democracy and Economic Development GUAM

conflict zones represent a threatening challenge not only to the countries in which they are located, but also to the wider region. And we all have to coordinate and consolidate our efforts in order to facilitate the peaceful resolution of those conflicts. A possible contribution of GUAM to the resolution of “frozen” conflicts could be in the area of combating organized crime. Unfortunately, these conflict zones are sources of illegal trafficking of human beings, illegal trafficking of weapons, of drugs – in general, a source of international criminal activities. So coordinated efforts of law-enforcement institutions of GUAM states confronting criminal activities in these regions will also contribute to the improvement of the overall climate, will force criminals to reduce their activities, and will give additional opportunities for our businessmen and entrepreneurs to develop their activities..."

"...We have to be honest with ourselves — we can-

not proceed to serious tackling of security issues of the Black Sea region without first changing the BSEC Charter. I do not think that we can reach today the consensus that is required to change the Charter. However, we can start taking small steps towards that direction. It would give more influence. For example, the Chairman office would issue statements on international political events affecting the region. We can also establish a working group to discuss issues relating to regional security and stability. It is, however, important to avoid duplication of efforts being made by other authorized organizations, which are recommended to deal with “frozen” conflicts..."

Murat SUNGAR, First Deputy of Secretary General of the Permanent International Secretariat, Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

"...I would like to congratulate Ukraine on the occasion that important international events are taking place in Kyiv and Ukraine is becoming a serious player and influential factor in working out approaches to “frozen” conflicts resolution. I would also like to stress that it is a great responsibility for Ukraine, but we in Moldova are convinced that Ukraine deserves this trust, because for many years it has been unprejudiced, objective mediator in the settlement process of the Transdniestrian conflict..." "...The presence of internal and external prerequisites for serious decision-making is an important component for finding the model of conflict resolution. I think that those ideas and proposals which are actively discussed both outside and inside of Moldova today are supporting the real perspective of qualifying (though, with cautious optimism) the situation as such, that provides the possibility to find a solution for de-freezing the Transdniestrian conflict in the nearest time..."

Nikoloz VASHAKIDZE, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Georgia

Vasile SHOVA, Minister of Reintegration, Republic of Moldova

"...Georgia has probably the most complex situation having two “protracted” conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia which have lasted over fifteen years. In both cases we have conflicts where separatist and criminal regimes have been intensively supported from outside for many years. Georgia has many times focused the attention of the international community on the problem of “frozen” conflicts that are threatening security and stability of not only separate states but the entire neighborhood as well, creating a serious threat for European security as a whole. Regarding the settlement of the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia, we first of all have to underline that we are facing the necessity of comprehensive regulation of the process of settlement. Here we speak about changes in the formats of negotiations and the peacekeeping operation. Furthermore, one of the main priorities for Georgia is providing the secure and respectful return of victims of ethnic cleansing. And here we consider protection of human rights and also protection of ownership rights of these people. We must not allow legitimization of the results of ethnic cleansing..." "...Regarding the situation in South Ossetia, we can acknowledge that there are new and very important realities and factors in the process of settlement. We have a unique chance now to create a really wining situation for all parties involved. This chance has to be used properly and we are undertaking certain steps in this direction..." NOVEMBER 14, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM

EXPERT FOCUS

"...European integration is one of the key elements of stability in the region. European perspective is one of the key issues for resolving conflicts which may arise, because when there is no hope the people in the region see no future, they see only boundaries banning them to move freely within their neighboring countries. They see no future, and they return to the ethnic issues, they start playing the ethnic card. We believe that the opening of negotiations, the opening of talks with the European Union is a key element for bringing the stability to the region..." Milen KEREMEDCHIEV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Republic of Bulgaria

"...Lithuanian

authorities consider three critical elements for the successful resolution of the so-called ‘frozen’ conflicts. First, we are looking at transparency between the parties; second, at international representation in the mechanism for conflict resolution mechanism; and last but not least, at an open perspective to the policy of the European Atlantic Community, which attracts both central governments and separatist leaders..."

"...Integration with Europe is not a policy against Russia’s interests; on the contrary, our experience shows that integration with Europe helps to increase the level of cooperation between member countries and Russia. Each case is unique, no precedence should be automatically implied and we have to regard the efforts to imply a precedence as provocative and threatening to international peace and stability..."

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

Simonas SATUNAS, Advisor to the President of the Republic of Lithuania

"...Each of these conflicts is unique, there is no stan-

dard approach for solving them, but we must start from the principle of respect for a country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. None of the conflicts has been amenable to easy resolution and it is fair to say, that these conflicts have been going on for too long. But it is also equally clear that we must not let politics or upcoming elections scheduled in various countries to delay the search for solutions for these conflicts, or become an excuse to avoid meetings. We also must not let developments elsewhere far away become a precedent when they really have nothing to do with unique situations and conflicts in the region..."

David KRAMER, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, US Department of State

"...We shouldn’t get focused on formal processes, at the expense of trying to produce positive results. And if informal processes can lead to progress on solving the problem, the United States is all for that. We support very much maintaining the “5+2” process with regard to Transdniestrian conflict, but we shouldn’t lose the sight of what the “5+2” process is designed to do. And that is to bring about progress and success in solving this conflict..." "...As with Moldova, the US is committed to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia, and to the peaceful solution of the conflicts involving South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We have repeatedly underscored to all the sides, including to the Government in Tbilisi, that there can be no military solution to these conflicts. We have stressed that message to Moscow as well. We frankly share the Georgian Government’s frustration with the lack of progress in the negotiations..." "...The United States has not done enough in explaining why Kosovo is different and why Kosovo is not a precedent for any of these other conflicts. Kosovo’s circumstances are special and unique because of the violent break-up with the former Yugoslavia, Belgrade’s campaign of ethnic cleansing and violent targeting of civilians, in contravention of multiple UN Security Council resolutions, which than led to NATO intervention, followed by a UN Security Council resolution that removed Belgrade’s rule over Kosovo and placed Kosovo under International Administration. And it explicitly envisioned a political process to determine Kosovo’s status. There have been eight years since during which Kosovo has enjoyed self rule under UN Administration rather than being governed by Serbia. All those factors combined underscore why Kosovo is a different case and not a precedent for any of the other conflicts in the Black Sea region..." NOVEMBER 14, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM

EXPERT FOCUS

"...What is happening now in the zone of the Nagorno-

Karabakh conflict? I fully agree with Azerbaijani Minister of Defense – the war goes on there. Indeed, after the ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994, this war has transformed into another form. It could be classified as position warfare of low intensity with such elements as sniper warfare, with ranger raids and engineering resources..."

"...Notwithstanding the multiple statements of the cochairs of the OSCE Minsk Group about the upcoming mutually-acceptable solution to the conflict, this settlement is not expected any time soon and in the nearest years is unlikely to be worked out. This means that within this conflict zone some specific factors are working. Most likely, they are even of not regional, but out-of-the-region character, and they allow the conflicting sides to hope for the achievement of their maximalist demands..."

Sergey SARGSYAN, Senior Expert, SPECTRUM Center for Strategic Analysis, Armenia

"...Although the mediation efforts in resolving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh conducted for already quite a long period of time within the framework of the OSCE have not always been consistent and have yet to yield results, Azerbaijan continues to be committed to solving the conflict peacefully and in a constructive manner within the OSCE Minsk Group. The ultimate objective of the settlement process is to elaborate and define the model and legal framework of the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region within Azerbaijan..."

Tofik Fuad oglu MUSAYEV, Director, Department of Foreign Policy Planning and Strategic Studies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Azerbaijan

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

"…While envisaging the realization of this perspective in the final stage of the peace process, it is logical that the whole strategy would not become a reality without the restoration of Azerbaijan’s sovereign rights over all occupied territories and the safe and dignified return of the expelled Azerbaijani population thereto..." "...It is very difficult to hope for a substantial breakthrough judging from a position on which Armenia persists. In reality, taking advantage of favorable results of military actions, Armenia is trying to consolidate the current status quo and impose finally a fait accompli situation. It, first, hinders the return of the Azerbaijani population to NK and, secondly, excludes equal consideration of opinions of both communities. Moreover, Armenia is trying to keep some territories as hostages and bargaining chips with regard to the status of NK. While being committed to the peaceful settlement of the conflict, Azerbaijan, however, will never compromise its territorial integrity and thus accept a fait-accompli based solution, which the Armenian side is trying to impose..."

"...Lack of progress tends to provoke lassitude on all sides and in the long term, may eventually lead to renewal of hostilities. Frustrated with peace talk formats or lack of movement, some sides try to break the status quo by alternative solutions. Lack of progress in the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan is likely to provoke radicalization on both sides. Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has shown a real engagement in the peace talks. Both sides are indeed dealing with this conflict with other means that contradict deeply the questions now being discussed in the peace talks’ framework. Both have moreover engaged in a concerning strategy of modifying the force balance by an arms race. Renewal of war is more and more likely to happen, in particular after 2012..."

Claire DELESSARD, Senior Analyst, International Crisis Group, "...The general failure of peace talks in the South Caucasus is mainly due to a lack of political will on every Georgia – Azerbaijan side. Russia has been an important barrier to dialogue, in

particular since the relation with Georgia deteriorated. Alternative strategies may bring changes in status quo, but only if they are accompanied by the extension of dialogue and the equal participation of all actors in the case of Georgia. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, alternative strategies are a way to avoid an engagement in the peace talks and to maintain the status quo. This tendency has to be broken. Only an increased involvement of foreign actors could in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh push the two sides to a real engagement in the talks and to prepare their societies for an eventual breakthrough. Both states must be significantly pressured in this direction. Demand for changes in the peace talks’ format must be taken into account by all involved actors, in particular in the case of Georgia. In any case, status quo is not a guarantee of peace in the long term. If conditions for constructive dialogues are not created at the official level as well as between the societies, long lasting status quo can only lead to further radicalization on every side..."

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM

EXPERT FOCUS

"...From the psychological point of view, the soci-

ety, its elite and state management will never be able to agree that some part of the state’s territory could be lost due to separatism. At the same time, the population living on the separatist territories in most cases is psychologically ready to consider the possibility under certain conditions of common life within the framework of a revived united state. Therefore, within this framework (of categorical impossibility for the first, and certain, with adherence to some additional conditions, possibility for the later) it is necessary to look for “frozen” conflicts’ resolution..."

Andriy VESELOVSKY, Deputy Foreign Minister, Ukraine

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

"...At the moment, alongside with the processes of Euro-integration and consolidation, the concept of a “Europe of regions” is gaining wider development within the EU. It foresees certain devolution of state management, strengthened cooperation of territories of different countries within the framework of big regions (sometimes institutionalized in “Euroregions”) with the aim of economic and humanitarian development and aimed (focused) cooperation. I am sure that continuation of economic and social reforms, democratic transformation of society, strengthening of the lawful state alongside with simultaneous extension of the rights of its regions, and coordinated devolution within the country through active and creative application of European Euro-regional building experience, could become not only a desirable bridge for the reunification of Moldova, but also an effective instrument for advancements in this direction..."

"...Use of the term “frozen conflicts” at pres-

ent is not quite correct. The active “de-freezing” of ethno-political conflicts is taking place in the post-Soviet space, understanding it as the change of format of conflict settlement (or attempts to change this format) and the striving to destroy (or at least violate) the legal base created to prevent armed hostilities from resuming..."

"...The “frozen conflict” is neither good nor bad. It is all about registering the political reality. Given this reality, first, there is no mutually acceptable compromise solution that would satisfy both conflicting sides. Second, the balance of forces does not make it possible for the sides to win a victory once and for all time (or in some historic perspective). By and large the “frozen conflict” is a suspension (termination) of the armed standoff between the conflicting sides..." "...Does the status quo have a negative or positive impact? The idea a negative impact of the status quo was repeated many times over. At the same time the “freezing” of conflicts and maintaining the status quo provides a period of grace needed for working out the basics of political settlement. If the sides to the conflict are not ready to observe this scenario, Russia (or any other peace-keeping side) is not to blame. The critics of the “frozen conflicts” and the supporters of their “de-freezing” fail to take into account the fact that the public in their countries can be much more radical about their demands than official politicians. …The “defreezing” of the “frozen conflict” for the sake of a change in the balance of forces is the much worse scenario of developments compared with the status quo. The eternally “frozen conflicts” are a much more positive phenomena than the “de-freezing” for the sake of a blitz-krieg..."

Sergei MARKEDONOV, Head of Interethnic Relations Group, Institute for Political and Military Analysis, Russian Federation

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM 1 9

EXPERT FOCUS

"...In summary, Kosovo independence achieved through a unilateral declaration could well provoke a series of uncontrolled and enormously damaging events. Considering NATO’s post-Cold War investment in the Balkans, the Alliance’s prestige would experience a considerable setback if its Balkan missions unraveled. Transatlantic ties could be weakened at the time of NATO’s greatest need. Antagonism with Russia is likely to result in its intransigence on other issues that are vital to the U.S., such as the other not-so “frozen” conflicts in Moldova and South Caucasus..." Jeffrey SIMON, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University, USA

"...I fully share the perception that the Transdniestrian conflict is the easiest one to be solved, though I would like to question the assumption that conditions are ripe for a lasting settlement of this conflict. ...Instead of being tempted to have a quick fix, a swift solution, because it’s easy, it is important to focus on a long-term approach preparing the right settlement. I have concerns that this hastiness shown and lack of attention to the fact that key factors are not in place, will bring a bad settlement..." Andrei POPOV, Executive Director, Foreign Policy Association, Moldova

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

"...EUBAM is a technical advisory body, which is assisting Ukrainian and Moldovan authorities to develop their border management in order to meet better EU standards and best practices. EUBAM has been a great success from the very beginning â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an effective tool in the EU toolbox. The main reason for this success has been the full political commitment to the EUBAM activities from the Ukrainian and Moldovan sides..." Antti HARTIKAINEN, Deputy Head, EUBAM Mission

Oleksandr PAVLYUK, Head of External Cooperation, OSCE Secretariat

"...One needs to keep in mind that a lasting solution cannot be imposed from outside, but is the ultimate responsibility of the parties in conflict. It is very difficult, if possible at all, to achieve breakthrough if overall conditions are not conducive. Inability of the international community to help achieve the final peaceful settlements has resulted in recent years in some criticism that the existing peacekeeping arrangements and the established negotiation formats do not facilitate conflict settlement, but sustain the status quo. There have also been calls for their replacement or modification. The OSCE, however, is of the opinion that the existing negotiation formats have not yet exhausted themselves and still offer unused possibilities to get out of the deadlocks..." "...In some of these conflicts, solution might eventually not be found by the OSCE as the only actor, but in interaction with other players. On its side, the OSCE stands ready to continue its multiple efforts to facilitate the solution of the remaining frozen/protracted conflicts in its area of responsibility. When a solution is found, the OSCE will likely remain a key framework for the implementation of a conflict settlement package..." NOVEMBER 15, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM

EXPERT FOCUS

Panagiota MANOLI, Director of Studies and Research, International Center for Black Sea Studies, Greece

"...Resolution of conflicts is key for the very meaningful existence of the BSEC itself, as its performance has been decisively undermined by the high security dilemma that Black Sea states are confronted with. ...The lack of collective security framework in the Black Sea area has been filled in by efforts of major international organizations (OSCE, UN) or states to address the conflicts and open up fora for negotiations. However, the region still has no single unified security structure- and it does not appear likely to develop one in the near future. At the same time, regional organizationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance is heavily undermined by the problem of collective action which remains high in this part of the world. In such a perspective, it may be useful to examine a possible BSEC role in the coordination of post-conflict rehabilitation, reconstruction of infrastructure, and eventual economic integration with the support of the EU..."

"...The EU is getting more involved in regions where conflicts persist and therefore I hope that also for the Caucasus in a few years time there will be a sort of fullfletched regional arrangement. â&#x20AC;ŚIt will take more political will and strong position of 27 countries to do more than EU does on the border to support advisers that we have at the EUBAM between Moldova and Ukraine. This is the experience which is very valuable, but in my opinion the EU should be more proactive in this field..." Rainer RUGE, Council of the European Union, Directorate-General for External and PoliticoMilitary Affairs 22

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

"...It seems that the consensus among major states and NATO member-states has already been reached as to granting independence to Kosovo. I would like to say that warnings that this should not be viewed as a precedent will not work. They will not be working in relation to the separatists who ignore the norms of internal laws and constitutions and ignore international law. Granting independence to Kosovo could produce negative consequences and all of the supporters of such move should think about this very carefully..." Borys TARASYUK, Director, Institute for EuroAtlantic Cooperation, Ukraine

"...Russia demonstrates bias with regard to sides in the conflict. Russia not only caused these conflict situations, but also heated and continues to heat-up the separatism. Basically, separatism in Transdniestria, NagornoKarabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia continues because of Russia. It is because of Russia’s bias that at the very beginning of the 90’s Ukraine refused to participate in the so-called “peacekeeping operations”, which in fact were Russian Federation’s “peacekeeping operations”. ...It is Russia which was and is amplifying militarization of the parties to the conflict on one side, and this side, coincidentally, is the initiator of the separatism..."

"...Conflicts on the post-Soviet territory were never on the NATO agenda, and even less were they part of the bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and NATO, even from the point of view of political aspects. Moreover, currently Russia indeed views very negatively any expansion of NATO activities in the postSoviet space. And maybe now there are certain objective concerns, objective alertness which totally distinguishes the current situation from what we have witnessed in the period of the first wave of NATO enlargement in 1997. Those fears and concerns did not have, or had just very distant, strategically potential grounds. Today’s fears are more real, and therefore, the stance on NATO, its policies and activities on the post-Soviet space is consolidated and negative among Russian political elite..."

Artem MALGIN, Counselor to the Rector, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Russia

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM 23

EXPERT FOCUS

"...As long as NATO remains part of the geopolitical furniture in the Black Sea and Caspian region, and as long as NATO observes its own principles and criteria, then it is safe to say that NATO remains a predictable factor in this region with a steadying influence. That will not be enough to solve conflicts, but up to now it has been enough and I think in the future it very probably will be enough to persuade any rational actor, and Russia is nothing if not a rational actor. A one-sided solution to these conflicts cannot be imposed on anybody. So, NATO is a restraining factor in the region..." "...The Transdniestrian conflict will be on its way to a solution when the EU provides for Moldova the political, economic and moral support that the Russian Federation provides to Transdniestria. NATO is not the best instrument to provide that kind of support..." "...There has been a considerable diversion of power and attention of the United States and many other significant members of NATO from this region and into other regions and other problems. I am speaking not simply of military resources but intellectual and political resources which are now increasingly over-stretched. That means that the problems of this region and the conflicts in this region continue to receive consistent, steady and expert attention, but on the mid-level, at the level of mid-level officials and experts. But at the high level, attention is intermittent and the risk is that attention will be given only after the crisis develops, not before. So instead of solving problems when they are relatively easy to solve, we are forced to solve them when they become much more difficult to solve. This is the problem we face in Kosovo and this is a problem we face elsewhere..."

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

James SHERR, Fellow, Advanced Research and Assessment Group, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom

"...To my thinking, international interference results

in Kosovo-like events, as when it prevented the Albanians from the Chechen perspective. In the meantime, this interference gave the Albanians safety and ability to legalize their ethnic authority. Under the conditions of democratic elections and an ethnically mobilized community, they would surely vote for their ethnic advantages. That’s what they did – legalized their authority and made the second step for independence…"

Hryhoriy PEREPELYTSYA, Director, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Ukraine

"...How should Serbia respond? The Peace Agreement concluded by the NATO military operation in Yugoslavia reads that, in addition to Serbia’s commitments, the international community has commitments to preserve the territorial integrity of Serbia. How do NATO and other international structures dealing with these issues look if they recognize Kosovo’s independence? This discredits international organizations’ role in conflict settlement..."

"...“Frozen” conflicts are addressed with the tools of the Cold War era, while post-modern creativity and inventive conflict transformation are the only way that could give a chance for an eventual resolution..." "...The EU is a major player and its’ so called “soft power” of transformation and integrative power is, in fact, a clear “strong power” given by the enlargement process. Now, the ENP is used as an alternative policy with the same objectives and without the same means, instruments and tools. This should be reviewed, since EU is losing step by step its credibility, attractiveness and “strong transformative power” with the discussions of closing the door..."

Julian CHIFU, Executive Director, Center for Conflict Prevention and Early Warning, Romania

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 KYIV SECURITY FORUM 25

EXPERT FOCUS

"...Russia is getting rich, is getting stronger, and is learning more from its mistakes. Therefore, all countries have to take Russia much more seriously than has been the case in the last ten to twenty years. At the moment the question is, what type of political leaders will come in the foreseeable future from Russia to other countries, what type of political visions will they have? The region needs visionary politicians, because if we will try to solve the problems within the parameters we had before, forget that, it will not be the case..."

Huseyn BAGCI, Professor, Department of International Relations, Middle Eastern Technical University, Turkey

"...How deeply could the democratization process be successful? How much is democratization a tool for the further development and solving of the problems in this part of the world? What is the intellectual exchange among the countries? The intellectuals in Ukraine, in Russia, in Turkey, in all other countries should become responsible in confronting the public and educating the future of their countries..."

"...Russia is interested in conflict resolution,

but in conflict resolution with consideration of its geopolitical interests in this region. By virtue of historic tradition, Russia has always strived to dominate in the Black Sea region, as well as Turkey by virtue of the same historic tradition. And the interaction of Russia and Turkey within the Black Sea region could lead to further positive effects in conflict settlement..."

"...From my perspective, Russia has a serious insufficiency in the Black Sea region, because Russia does not have a clear well-defined foreign strategy towards the region, it is absent. Moreover, it is sad that our officials frequently ignore presence and participation in such fora, and do not express their point of view, and are depriving themselves of the opportunity to become enriched with new ideas..."

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

NOVEMBER 15, 2007

Boris KUZNETSOV, Director, Center of International and Regional Studies, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

CAMERA FOCUS

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

CAMERA FOCUS

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

KYIV SECURITY FORUM 29

CAMERA FOCUS

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

CAMERA FOCUS

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

KYIV SECURITY FORUM 33

SUMMARY REPORT

General context “Frozen conflicts” in the Black Sea region (Transniestria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia-Abkhazia-South Ossetia knot) present tremendous challenge to security. They create an obstacle for the development of sovereign democratic countries and prevent development of a prosperous and politically and economically integrated European continent. Each conflict has its own historic background, and is associated with knots of political, economic and social difficulties. Resolution of frozen conflicts has proved to be an overwhelmingly difficult challenge. Deeply entrenched economic and political interests in the secessionist entities, mutual distrust and suspicion between parties in conflicts, involvement and interests of third parties, and sometimes inconsistency in approaches of the international community have all contributed to the magnitude of this challenge. One also needs to keep in mind that a lasting solution can not be imposed from outside, but is an ultimate responsibility of the parties in conflict. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve breakthrough if overall conditions are not conducive. The Kyiv Security Forum reiterated the uniqueness of each conflict within the Black Sea region, which differ in both origins and specific characteristics. Oversimplification and stereotypes need to be avoided, and templates and a “one size fits all” approach are unacceptable for “frozen” conflicts resolution. Lately there are visible changes in conflict areas of the Black Sea region, which demonstrate certain dynamics in the “frozen” conflicts, the nature of which could not be assessed in either a positive or negative way. Even though this dynamics exists, and it would be more accurate to describe them as “sleeping”, “smoldering” or “protracted”, the international community still tends to view these “frozen” conflicts statically. The Kyiv Security Forum offered different, at times totally opposite views of the perspectives for each conflict resolution – both optimistic and pessimistic versions were voiced. Some experts are certain that “frozen conflicts” in the Black Sea region have a huge probability for escalation, for “blowing up”, and windows of opportunity are closing for their settlement in the nearest years. Cautious but hopeful expectations of finding solution were suggested with regards to Transniestria. However, other experts stressed that the EU and government of Moldova are overly optimistic in attributing too much power to the economic leverage and overestimation of the neutrality tools. Another fragile hope for settlement surfaced with regard to South Ossetia, where a visible positive trend has a high probability to be secured. KSF discussions stressed that a military solution should not be an option for resolution of the “frozen” 34

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

conflicts in the Black Sea region. The lack of political, economic and financial leverages impedes the conflict resolution to date. Social instruments are also not used to the fullest potential. The economic factor was softly involved - it was engaged inadvertently or indirectly. Therefore, the relevance of economic cooperation and joint economic projects should be reinforced in the region. The use of the European experience of regional building could also create additional possibilities for “reunion”. Humanitarian existence of people is a major goal, consequently, finding a solution for the conflicts needs to be less about high politics and more about human security, the possibility for people to live normal and prosperous lives. Development of countries facing “frozen” conflicts on their territory, their success in democracy building and economic prosperity are essential incentives for the separatist territories to be more engaged in dialogue and to see their future with some form of special status within those countries (i.e., Georgia and Moldova). Externally, the problem of dispersed attention and resources (military, intellectual, political) in major Western states interested in conflict resolution in the Black Sea region implies that these problems and conflicts will receive attention only at the medium level of experts and politicians. This creates a threat that “frozen” conflicts in the Black Sea region may gain deeper international attention only after their escalation – when the crisis erupts, not before that. It has been suggested, that there is a serious geopolitical struggle between the West and the Russian Federation in the region, however, officials are denying a view of the region in zero-sum game terms. The Russian Federation, being a Caucasus country, is objectively interested in participation in the conflicts’ resolution, but it is uneasy with unpredictability and is reluctant to disrupt the existing established balance. In addition to this, the efforts of a strengthened Russia to reinforce the presence of its intelligence in the region and constant work on modernization of its military capacities in the region should not be underestimated. This political factor has to be taken into account and should be systematically monitored.

Existing frameworks/mechanisms for conflict resolution Conflicts present an overwhelming challenge for the international community, especially in light of different limitations of each international organization already or potentially engaged in their resolution. Obstacles for effective engagement include structure and composition of international organizations, complex decision-making procedures, and even more importantly, noncompliance of the national states to their declarations and responsibilities taken within international organizations’ framework. OSCE was the first international organization to get involved in conflict resolution in the Black Sea region, when there were no instruments developed for its engagement. The OSCE contributed to stopping armed conflicts and reaching cease-fires, and brought certain legitimacy and political neutrality to conflict-settlement efforts. Since then, the OSCE has been crucial in a) helping to hold communication channels between parties in conflict open; b) maintaining dialogue; and c) exploiting possible avenues for settlement. In periods of relative or absolute inertia by the sides, it was the OSCE that was trying to keep up momentum. It still remains the mostly involved international institution, and has the capability to employ innovative approaches through its Chairman-in-Office, its Personal/Special Envoys, field operations, the Conflict Prevention Centre, etc. KYIV SECURITY FORUM 35

SUMMARY REPORT

The European Union, having special relationships with all countries of the region, is not an external player in the Black Sea region and should become a more engaged actor in the conflict resolution as well. The EU’s so called “soft power” of transformation and integrative power is a clear “strong power” given the enlargement process. The EU offers European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) as a toolbox which, through political and economic reforms, could strengthen the countries of the region, making them more attractive to the populations of the conflict areas. However, the ENP is used as an alternative policy with the same objectives as enlargement, but without the same means, instruments and tools, which weakens its attractiveness and “strong transformative power”. “Frozen” conflicts basically present a taboo issue for the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC), even though its initial goal was formulated as enhancing peace and stability in the region. BSEC lacks a genuine interest and commitment from the states in the region, and it lacks a collective security framework. The problem of collective action remains an issue, and BSEC will not establish security structure (regional or wider) in the foreseeable future. BSEC cannot proceed to seriously tackle security issues of the Black Sea region without first changing its charter, which is currently impossible. However, BSEC should be proactive in taking small steps towards that direction (i.e., issuing statements on international political events affecting the region by Chairman in office; establishing working groups on issues of regional security and stability). NATO will not be able to avoid the issues of “frozen” conflicts resolution in its political agenda; however, feasibility of its military structures’ involvement in conflict resolution in the Black Sea region remains questionable. NATO’s role in the region should be visible, but absent. Its political involvement could be reached through focusing the attention of the discussions within the framework of the Council of Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, through the mechanisms of PfP, through individual programs of partnership with the states-participants of the conflict resolution. It also could be done through discussions at the Permanent NATO-Russia Council or at the NATO-Ukraine Commission. With Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to NATO, the organization’s presence in the Black Sea region has been strengthened, and with clearly stated intentions of Ukraine and Georgia – NATO’s role potentially will also grow. As long as NATO remains part of the geopolitical fabric of the Black Sea region, and adheres to its own principles and criteria, it will remain a predictable factor in the region – not enough to solve the conflicts, but enough to persuade the rational actor. Notwithstanding modest but still assessable results produced by international organizations in the “frozen” conflicts resolution, room for improvement of the performance, as well as deeper engagement remains. Furthermore, the current instruments, tools, and parameters used are still of “Cold War era” format, while post-modern creativity and inventive conflict transformation are the only way that could give a chance for eventual resolution. Therefore, the instruments employed have if not to be changed, than widened to incorporate new approaches; new mechanisms have to be introduced in the existing framework. Positive recent examples of these new approaches include: • •

transformation of the 3+2 format for Moldova into 5+2 format; introduction of new confidence-building measures in the region (since 2006 - OSCE-led Economic Rehabilitation Programme in South Ossetia, worth Euro 8.2 million, designed to restore infrastructure, generate economic activity, and reintegrate communities; since November 2005 - implementaKYIV SECURITY FORUM

tion of the EU Commission mission – EUBAM, assisting Ukrainian and Moldovan authorities in development of their border management in compliance with best practices and meeting EU standards). This experience should be further built upon and strengthened. Once the solution for conflicts is found, the framework for implementation of a conflict settlement package will still be needed - that is the area which will remain essential for international organizations’ engagement.

Balkan Lessons By the beginning of 2008, as a result of the developments around Kosovo, Europe will face further dynamic with regard to “frozen” conflicts resolution. The KSF, on different levels, restated that Kosovo should not become and should not be treated as precedent for “frozen” conflict resolution in the Black Sea region, however, it will definitely have an impact on developments in this area. Moreover, Kosovo will most likely be used as a precedent by governments of self-proclaimed territories in the Black Sea region, since they will not be restrained by calls “not to make Kosovo a precedent”, and will disregard the special status of Kosovo, placed under international administration. Therefore, Kosovo independence achieved through a unilateral declaration could well provoke a series of uncontrolled and enormously damaging events. It could prove disastrous for Balkan stability, and could potentially create a domino effect for the whole Black Sea region. Furthermore, antagonism with Russia in this respect is also likely to result in its intransigence on not-so “frozen” conflicts in Moldova and South Caucasus. In the principles framework, observance of the Helsinki principles, stating that separatism is not acceptable, that new borders could be obtained only through peaceful separation and with the agreement of the sovereign state should be fundamental. The basic approach that should be further adhered to is finding solutions based on sovereignty and territorial integrity, and on finding special status for break-away regions.

General approach to conflict resolution Conflict resolution is not only political agreement between two states, or two entities, but between two people striving to reach mutual understanding, since lasting peace is important afterwards. So far, the societies have not overcome the conflict state of mind; therefore, continuous preparation of the population is essential for a positive outcome. As a result, civil society should be proactive, and should be pushed in the direction of consolidation of positive rhetoric. Through finding constructive and positive dialogue, it is possible to extend the prospects for agreements. The Kyiv Security Forum discourse suggested that “bad, but prompt” resolution of the “frozen” conflicts should not be the target for the international community. Such an approach is counterproductive, since it might be undermined by doubtful sustainability of the solution reached. Therefore, solutions that are well thought-through, acceptable for all parties involved, and may be further away in time should be further searched. KYIV SECURITY FORUM

MEDIA FOCUS

November 22nd, 2007

Security lesson

“…James Sherr, Fellow, Advanced Research and Assessment Group, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom: ‘…Russia wants Ukraine and other post-Soviet territories to recognize that they belong to the special political, cultural and strategic community under Russian's domination. If the West makes such a deal, Russia will cooperate with Iran and will make everything possible to expand Abkhazian, South-Ossetian conflicts…’ ”

ing the Transnistrian problem. It also reflects the correct general approach of Ukraine to this process — Kyiv builds its work on European values, supports more transparent principles in these issues. Thus Ukraine makes an invaluable contribution into this conflict resolution… …The more successful Ukraine and Moldova would fight against corruption, the higher their chances to solve conflicts and the broader their perspectives to approach the European Union...”

November 15th, 2007

“I have not heard of anyone willing to join us…” November 17th, 2007

Transnistrian conflict can be solved Olena Hetmanchuk "…Recently crossing the distances between Brussels and three post-Soviet capitals as well as following the ‘diplomatic art’ of representatives of the 5+2 format mostly inclined to negotiation surprises is assigned to Mr. Kalman Miszei, a Hungarian economist and special EU representative for Moldova… Last week he arrived in Kyiv to take part in the large-scale international conference on frozen conflict issues initiated by Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his Open Ukraine Foundation. Mr. Kalman Miszei: “Yuschenko’s plan has deeply and positively contributed to the process of solv38

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

"...The two-day conference “Resolution of Frozen Conflicts: Security and Stability in the Black Sea Region” will come to an end today in Kyiv… Secretary General of the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development GUAM, Valeriy Chechelashvili was interviewed by Denis Popovich, Kommersant journalist. Mr Chechelashvili does not consider the expansion of GUAM the end in itself…" “...Ukraine has already contributed to the strengthening the stability and security in the region. Since its independence we do experience real support from Ukraine in absolutely different situations. Ukraine’s partaking in resolution of the Transnistria conflict is another proof of this thesis…”

November 19th, 2007

Role plays

Tetyana Ponomar "...Ukraine pretends to play a leader in the Black Sea region, not having yet appropriate economic, political and military resources. Participant of the Kyiv Security Forum, Thomas Eymond-Laritaz, President and CEO of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, reportedly sees a paradox in solving “frozen conflicts” —the conflicts are discussed everywhere – in Washington DC, Brussels — except in the Black Sea region itself…"

November 16th, 2007

Vasile Shova: we have a real chance to solve the Transdniestrian conflict

November 19th, 2007

“Washington is not disappointed with Ukraine…” Interview by Olena Hetmanchuk "...David Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, US Department of State: “…I don’t believe that Ukraine faced a political stroke after the second parliamentary elections. One of the proofs of it can be, for instance, a concluded agreement with Kyrgyzstan about WTO. Another proof is the reason of my arrival to Kyiv — the international conference, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in partnership with a couple of non-governmental organizations on the issues of “frozen conflicts”. It means that some things are to take place here…"

Interview by Mykola Siruk “… My optimism is based on the short-term possibility to find a model package approach for solving the Transdniestrian conflict. I’m talking about a systematic approach of conflict regulation, done in such a way that participants of the “5+2” format could watch the whole process of regulation from start to finish. It makes the core component of the general context developing a regulation model unlike the previously practiced projects. These projects anticipated achieving progress at some stage and afterwards fixing the state of things. This kind of approach resulted in either stagnation or in its rolling back…”

Kyiv, November 14th, 2007

“Kyiv Security Forum – intellectual ground to solve frozen conflicts issues in CIS” — Arseniy Yatsenyuk Yana Lemshko, Volodymyr Sydoreko "...Ukraine initiated the Kyiv Security Forum following along its pragmatic interests. “We need strong partners, we need strong neighbors. The stronger our neighbors, the stronger our state and vice versa…”, stressed Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the opening of the Forum..." KYIV SECURITY FORUM 39

MEDIA FOCUS

ister of Foreign Affairs…” said Andriy Veselovsky, Deputy Minster of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine..."

November 15th, 2007

Open Ukraine called to discuss “frozen conflicts” "...The Ukrainian capital is discussing security issues at the First Kyiv Security Forum “Resolution of Frozen Conflicts: Security and Stability in the Black Sea Region”. The Forum is organized by the Charitable Open Ukraine Foundation. The Forum is attended by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine; president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe; Nino Burdjanadze, Head of the Georgian Parliament; David Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs of the US State Department; Peter Semneby, EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and Kalman Miszei, special EU representative for Moldova…"

November 14th, 2007

Ukraine will take pains to settle “frozen conflicts” in the Black Sea region Maryna Oliynyk "...Kyiv International Forum on security issues is held for the first time in Ukraine, however this initiative is planned to take place annually in a diplomatic form. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reportedly claims that the Forum will enable representatives of the non-governmental sector and civil society, government officials and experts to discuss timely issues of regional and European security…"

Kyiv, November 14th, 2007 Kyiv, November 13th, 2007

International Forum on “frozen conflicts” in the Black Sea region is to open in Kyiv

Head of the MFA is convinced that Ukraine will never experience neither regional nor frozen conflicts

Victor Avdienko “...an attempt to discuss these topics on such a high expert level is made for the first time… The session on November 14th will be held in a special format because of participation of recognized politicians and diplomats. The Forum will be opened by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukrainian Min40

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

"...He made this claim at the Wednesday briefing in Kyiv, right before the start of the First Kyiv Security Forum on security issues. Mr. Yatsenyuk noted that Ukraine is rather experienced in warming frozen conflicts on its territory. He pointed out that Ukraine is one of the few post-Soviet countries where no regional conflict has taken place..."

TV FOCUS

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

FORUM PARTNERS

ЦЕНТР МИРУ, КОНВЕРСІЇ ТА ЗОВНІШНЬОЇ ПОЛІТИКИ УКРАЇНИ

CENTER FOR PEACE, CONVERSION AND FOREIGN POLICY OF UKRAINE

under the auspieces

KYIV SECURITY FORUM

KYIV SECURITY FORUM 43

KYIV SECURITY FORUM