The Polish Institute of International Affairs in Warsaw has organized on 27 March 2013
the expert seminar with the participation of Mr. Ovidiu Dranga, State Secretary for Global Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania
Here are some not authorised remarks of Mr. Ovidiu Dranga on:
The Balkans:
We should do our best to help countries in this region having the European aspirations to succeed in this regard and joint European mainstream. For instance Montenegro has the potential to be a success story in this regard, Republic of Macedonia has come a long way towards the EU. But Bosnia and Herzegovina remains a very complex country, the very complex case on the European level. Serbia is a key player for stabilization and Romania remains a very strong supporter of its EU perspectives. We have to welcome the fact that dialog between Pristina and Belgrade is in a good way.
NATO
I would like to say a few words about NATO. I think one of the key element of our bilateral relationship with Poland, key element of our strategic, is a special position, the strong view about solidity of the transatlantic links and the role of NATO in this regards. We have been together in so many situations, in so many areas, in so many theaters of operations. The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq. And that was because Romania and Poland are committed to the NATO’s mission and to NATO’s responsibilities. Let me tell you that Romania will continue its presence in Afghanistan after the 2014, and we now are considering the ways to batter prepare for that moment in terms of civilian presence, in terms of helping the Afghans to continue their own reform process providing security to their own citizens.
What are actually ones of the most challenging issues for the European community – they are difficulties and sensitivities associated to the institutional dialog and cooperation between the UE and NATO, and the US and Europe. I think we are at the very important moment of our history. We should start thinking seriously that present fact of solidarity should not be taken for granted. We should build day after day, month after month, year after year our mutual cooperation; we have to put new building blocks on that relationships. It is important because although there are some promises going in the right directions there are also voices in Europe saying – well, Europe should take more responsibilities of its own, not necessarily, and not always in direct coordination with others.
I think this is wrong. We should stay together with the US as much as we can, we should be promoting in the future continuous and substantial presence of the US forces in Europe. That is really in the core of the transatlantic links.
Regarding the EU – NATO traditional relations this is a long story, but I think Poland and Romania should be the promoters of such a relationship. The strategic dialog between Washington and Brussels should be multiplied and we have to multiplied the area of cooperation, why not dedicating more energy to the question of energy security. We all know that energy security is already the topic on the NATO – EU agenda. We should be promoting a new approach given the fact that for instance Romania and Poland have now started to explore the shell gas.
There is an other issue of importance for the transatlantic relationship that is the economic energy. I think we should welcome the fact that there is the credible progress on the talks regarding the free trade transatlantic area. I think that is not only the security which keeps us together, it is also the common interest for progress in the government, for prosperity and development.
I truly believe that Romania and Poland share very important responsibility. They can set the tone in the Euro-Atlantic debate on very important issues. It is very important to promote the new strategic boldness in terms of what we can do together better for they years to come. We need more strategic objectives in the world with is in a structural change. I think our voice should be heard in Europe where I think some times there is a tendency to restrict the circle of decision makers to very limited countries. We should be more vocal in promoting others in this approach. And, last but not least, we have be more vocal in promoting jointly our common interests and common perception that would be translated in European policies and Euro-Atlantic endeavors for the sake of success of our European project and the stability of transatlantic relationships.
Vilnius Summit of Eastern Partnership
It’s normal to have expectations regarding such an important summit. On the other hand we should look a lit of bit beyond the summit as such. What we need is to send the joined signal to our eastern partners that is up to them to decide – whether they really want to get closer to the European Union, whether they want to have more a democratic society, a more prosperous economy, if they want to be responsible members of the European family. They should be told, I think, before the summit, during the summit, and after the summit that if they really want to make some progress towards the EU they have the instruments and the powers to do so. The rest is, I would say, politics. If they are problems in a country like Moldova, or any other country, political obstacles, those can be overcame if those political leaders consider membership in EU as a chance for access to more opportunities, as much as was the case for our countries. It is ma matter of political will. So the summit in Vilnius will be successful if the participant countries are really determined to make the success. It will be their success, their progress towards very ambitious agenda.
Moldova, Serbia and Kosovo
The official position of my country supports the integrity of the Republic of Moldova, we support the European aspirations of the Republic of Moldova, and that encompasses a lot of realism and pragmatism. What is equally important is the progress of the Republic of Moldova towards European integration. What is important is the evolution of the society, and that evolution towards democratic values, towards democratic institutions has to be encouraged. And that probably create a better framework, a better background for resolution. Because the resolution is not only a matter of negotiations between the parties involved at the level of government, it is a matter of the evolution of people on the ground, of their institutions and their aspirations. It is impossible to make progress at the political level without having a better understanding of what going on in those societies. And here there is the problem. There is the lack of trust; there is the lack of confidence. That’s the key. I do not foresee the easy solution for that topic. But if the Republic of Moldova is making the credible progress towards Europe conditions would be better for the resolution.
Regarding Serbia and Kosovo our position is well known – we have not recognized Kosovo and I do not think we will do it in the forcible future. The European Union is plying the very important role in this respect. One again – we have to look at figures, meaning the economic evolution in both – Serbia and Kosovo. The economic evolution of the West Balkans in general – these are all interconnected factors. Whenever the economic situation is worst they are difficulties in making progress on the political front. I am not very happy to mention the fact that national positions are expressed more often. I am not happy with the fact that there is not tangible progress in Bosnia Herzegovina. We should approach the region as such. If you want my personal view I think Europe and the US, we should be thinking about something that could be called Dayton II. What went wrong, what did we miss since Dayton I? What should be changed? What kind of new approach should be imagined for the Western Balkans? In same cases the EU membership was motivating enough for political forces towards democracy and market economy. But in other cases it was not so. What should we do to make European Union membership more attractive and to keep this perspective as credible as possible? We should not deny the new generations the right to hope that at certain moment they will join the Union and they make their lives better.
Georgia
The importance of the Black See region as a whole is beyond any doubt. In this context the relevance of the significance of problems of Georgia is obvious. I think Georgia has done a very good job in terms of consolidating the democratic institutions. The transition to the new government was smooth, peaceful and successful. That means that Georgian democracy is mature enough to manage such a very complex process. This is
a sign of strength of the democratic system in Georgia. The evolutions in Georgia should not be decoupled from the evolutions around Georgia and the role of Russia. The situation in Caucus is still fluid given the fact that there is very clear indication about what are the intentions of Russia in this region. All those subjects are on the agenda of the organizations we are belonging to. We are fallowing closely the evolutions there.
Romania and Ukraine
What we expect to see in Ukraine is the conservation of democratic system. It is exactly what happed in our countries, in Poland and Romania. It will really help on bilateral dialog because our relationships are based on values, as much as they are based on interests. Since the strategic directions of their reforms will not change there is the correspondence.
Romania and Poland
There are no obstacles in our relations. On the contrary – I can identify more opportunities to develop this partnership and to create conditions for growing role of the Polish – Romanian team in Europe. I mentioned already some opportunities – it is not only about common policy related to European actions, it is about concrete operations. For example in the area of assistance for development – I am very happy to see that we are shearing the same interest in promoting democracy in Northern Africa. In promoting our successful models in areas that require assistance. The review of the action plan is a technical process; there are not political obstacles in this process. There not set backs, there are not delays, etc. What we need probably is adaptation of this strategic partnership and realities on the ground in our Eastern neighborhood, in the Baltic, in Central Asia. I think we should probable enlarge the area of strategic dialog to include to it the remote areas. I am putting some emphasis on it because I think problems would come in following years from that part.
European Union
I have already pledged for a stronger common Polish voice on the European stage. The European matters are very important. We should encouraging the strategic discussion on haw do we think the European Union should would like to be 10 years, 30 years from now. What kind of Union do we need? Obviously the Union will change. This is inevitable. What kind of Europe do we want; this is the key question, particularly for our countries. As I mention we are responsible not only for our own countries future, we are responsible for future and progress of our continent. What kind of institutional framework would be appropriate in order to meet future needs and interests of our countries? Is the current framework flexible enough to meet our interests in the years to come? Have we devoted enough intellectual efforts to modernize the relationships between national countries and The Commission, The Commission and the Parliament? I would like to share with you the personal concern. I am more than sure that sometimes the foreign policy decisions at the European level, for instance taken by the Service for External Actions, are not necessarily in line with the positions and interests of member countries. Sometimes they develop an approach of their own with is not directly connected with the vision of our countries. What should we do change in this method? What we need are common institutions, we need stronger European Parliament, and we also need very strong role of national parliaments. All these constellations of institutions have to answer the question haw to work better. Haw to do it? We have to decide what went wrong? What kind of structural change should we face? We should not be afraid of being more critical in these meetings, we should not be afraid questioning the solidity of some decisions that are taken by European institutions, because they belong to us.
US anti missile system in Romania
We are very much satisfied with the progress here; we are on schedule with everything. And we are happy to see the confirmed commitment of Washington towards the implementation of the program. If you want of my personal view, very pragmatic view, the American boots on the ground in Europe are probably the most important living proof of tangible commitment towards European security. And I think that should be cherished and promoted as much as we can. I have been working closely several years at the Ministry of Defense in our mission at NATO with American diplomats and I know what means that concrete security connection with America. It provides strategic certainty to Europe as a country that hosts European forces. It could be see as a narrow approach to security – security means more than forces on the ground, means political dialog, political interactions, economic ties. That’s correct. But, may be this is old fashion view, boots on the ground are important.
Black See Area
The things have change significantly since 2002/2003 when we had discussions about Black See and its relevance for Europe. The change has been important given the evolution in Central Asia. There is now the growing interest in that strategic corridor which links Central Europe and Central Asia. The Black See is only an element on this strategic corridor, and should be treated as such. Black See is getting importance given the fact that lies at the crossroad of strategic security lines and also strategic energy corridors. We have to approach it differently – we have to continue obviously to promote democracy, human rights in the whole region, we should promote the European aspiration of Turkey, we should promote mutual trust and confidence in the Black See as an instrument to avoid escalation of tensions. Unfortunately we have not made enough progress in those directions. There are so many competing issues on the European Union’s agenda. It is very difficult to maintain those issues on the table – Iran, Iraq, Northern Africa, Korean Peninsula, etc. In such a case we have to reload Black See.
