- The impact of the financial crisis: How real is the risk of political de-stabilisation and rise of extremism? (25 – 26 March 2012)
- How to frame Europe security risks in the midst of the economic crisis? (03 – 04 July 2012)
- EU in crisis: How the others view the EU now (23 – 24 October 2012)
- Common Security and Defence Policy at Risk? (21-22 January 2013)
In 2010 when Europe was still uncertain on how deep the impact of the crisis will be on its economy, politics and place in the world the European Council on foreign relations conducted a survey on the threat perceptions of the EU member states. The survey demonstrated that for the majority of security experts and for the majority of the citizens the security challenge for the EU is not rooted in classical geopolitics; on the contrary, it seems to be a product of Europe’s geopolitical ease. The EU’s foreign-policy elites have fundamentally redefined what they mean by security.
First, the EU’s security elites increasingly look at security through the eyes of insurance companies rather than military planners. They take peace for granted and think in terms of risks instead of threats. In fact, none of EU’s 27 member states seems to fear military occupation. Thus the EU’s security elites do not feel they should spend more on defense despite their relatively low level of military spending and the resulting shift in the military balance of the EU and other powers.
Second, the vacuum left by the absence of war has been filled with post-modern fears. EU security elites and European citizens are mainly concerned about defending their way of life. Apart from a nod at terrorism, the survey showed that what EU security elites fear are threats to their standards of living: the impact of the financial crisis; energy insecurity; climate change; immigration..
Third, Europeans increasingly fear that they are becoming marginalized as power shifts away from the West. The survey showed that almost all member states are interested in what William Walker has called “positional security;” that is, “where they stand in the world, who they stand with, and how to improve or regain their standing.”
In the context of these findings it is legitimate to conclude that the disintegration of the EU comes as the major security threat for the EU member states and their citizens. And while at present the disintegration of the Union looks as an unlikely option, it is not an unthinkable or impossible one. At present the Union witnesses the erosion of the very foundations on which it is built. The shared memories of the WWII have faded away with a half of German high school students aged 15 and 16 revealed being unaware that Hitler was a dictator, while a third believing he protected human rights. The Soviet collapse has removed the geopolitical rationale for European unity. The democratic welfare state that was at the heart of the post-war political consensus is undergoing radical transformation. And prosperity that was at the core of the political legitimacy of the European project is in shambles.
The new mood of anxiety and uncertainty is reflected in the most recent "future of Europe" survey, funded by the European Commission and published in April 2012. It shows that while the majority of Europeans agree that the EU is a good place to live in, their confidence in the economic performance of the union and its capacity to play a major role in global politics has declined. More than six in ten Europeans believe that the lives of today's children will be more difficult than those of people from their own generation. Even more troubling, almost 90% of Europeans see a big gap between what the public wants and what governments do. Only a third of Europeans feel that their vote counts at EU level, and only 18% of Italians and 15% of Greeks consider their vote counts even in their own country.
So, it is fair to say that the current crisis is a game changer for the EU and in this context the present paper aims at addressing three key questions:
How the ongoing transformation of EU’s national democracies that comes as a result of the crisis will affect the prospects of closer cooperation in the field of foreign and security policies?
How the diverging national experiences of the crisis and the divisions born out of the crisis will affect the future of the CSDP of the EU?
And how the way the global others (the US, China, Russia and Turkey) view the nature and the consequences of the EU crisis will affect Europe’s global influence in the decade to come?
It’s Politics, Stupid
European politics have been dramatically affected by the crisis. The financial crisis has sharply reduced the life expectancy of governments, regardless of their political color, and opened the room for the rise of populist and protest parties. But while the rise of populist and extreme parties is one of the most often discussed political impact of the crisis, the empirical studies indicate that economic issues are marginal when it comes to the platforms and the sources of popularity of extreme parties. It is also unlikely that extreme party can form its own government in any of the member states. But while the repetition of the 1930s is unlikely the political impact of the crisis will be dramatic. The rise of protest and extreme parties indicate a profound transformation of European politics. They support the findings of Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth who in a paper published by the Center for Economic Policy Research argue that in the period 1919-2009 in Europe the politics of the budget cuts has led to the rise of social and political instability. The budget cuts affect not so much citizens’ pattern of voting than their readiness to be involved with extra-parliamentary politics-to go to strikes, rallies or to resort to violent actions.
What we witness in Europe today is the emergence of illiberal political consensus (a new common sense) that blames the failure of social integration on the immigrants, that favors national interest over European interest and that mistrusts the state institutions. And it is not the rise of the right wing radicalism but this very transformation of the European mainstream that is the real challenge for the survival of open societies.
The empirical studies indicate that youth plays a critically important role in the rise of the protest politics and that the populist and extreme parties are better positioned to function in the digital age. They better utilize the rise of the new social media.
Demography and the demographic fears of the majority groups play increasingly important role in the European politics. Threatened majorities - those who have everything and who fear everything - have emerged as the major force in shaping nations’ agendas. According to a report of the British Government’s Office of Communities and Local Governments in 2008 white people in Britain were less likely to feel that they can influence decisions that affect their country than the non-white minorities. Cultural insecurity more than economic stagnation explains the success of the extreme parties. The risk is that the attempt of the European leaders to take economic decisions out of the electoral politics will lead to re-defining democratic politics to claims over identities.
The constrains on democratic politics that came as a way to save the euro can have a far-reaching consequences for the future of Europe. The EU democracies were always constrained democracies. In the days of the Cold war foreign and security policies were de facto taken out of the electoral process. Voters could change governments but they could not change geo-political alliances (this explains why the powerful Italian communist party never ended in government before 1989). What European leaders sell to their publics now is a different version of constrained democracy, one in which the economic decisions are taken out of the electoral politics. Voters can change governments but not economic policies. European leaders tend to believe that only this type of democracy can guarantee the survival of the euro and prevent the disintegration of the Union. European leaders could be right. But the critical question is, is it possible to have functioning democracy where there are no significant political choices to be made and where economic policies are largely determined by non-political actors (central banks, international agencies, transnational corporations, articles in the constitution). Can such a democracy avoid the risk of permanent political and social instability?
So, it is not the rise of extreme parties and authoritarian governments but it is the rise of ungovernability of European democracy that comes out as the major political risk in Europe. We also argue that the transformation of the national politics and the rise of the protest parties will have important consequences for the foreign and security policies of the member states. The elites will lose their control over foreign and security policy decision-making and security issues will come at the core of the electoral politics. The expected rise of political and social instability will increase the influence of police and other security agencies in the political process of the member states while the role of the army in the process of decision-making will decline.
In short, while security experts are pre-occupied to understand how the budget cuts and the new fiscal constrains will affect the foreign and security policies of the nation states, we argue that the crisis will additionally decrease the willingness of the publics to invest in defense. While at the same time publics’ growing interest in foreign and security politics will lead to further nationalization of the foreign policy and will even further reduce Europe’s willingness to intervene globally. So, Europe risks the rise of populism and isolationism at the same time.
The Crisis and the Crises
Contrary to the hopes of many EU experts the euro crisis did not contribute to the unification of Europe so far. While politicians prefer to speak about the Crisis (in singular), in reality what we witness is crises (in plural). Germans and Greeks experienced the common crisis very differently. At the least for the moment Germany benefited economically and politically from the crisis while Southern Europe was simply destroyed by it.
The crisis put an end to some of the previously existing divisions in the EU, like the divisions between the old and new member states (division that was structurally defining for the Union in the pre-crisis decade) or the division between Germany and France and the rest/due to France’s loss of influence/ but at the same time it brought to the fore other divisions, four of which we consider of critical importance.
- The division between creditors and debtors that threatens the equality between the member states and creates the absurd situation in which the voters in one democracy (Germany) defined the economic policy of another democracy (Italy or Greece)
- The division between the members of the euro zone and others that brings the specter of two speed Europe
- The division in power between Germany and the rest that makes some fear the emergence of Germany’s Europe
- The division between the UK and the rest that raises the question of UK’s future in the EU.
When it comes to foreign and defense policies the emerging divisions in the EU can turn to be of critical importance. For the moment the member states that are most active in working in the direction of the EU as a global power with common defense policies are mostly mid-size member states like Poland and Sweden which try to use foreign and defense policies as a way to sustain the cohesion of the union. But if the current status quo in which the political leaders of some of the non-euro zone member states do their best to promote more active engagement with the world while the leaders of the big euro zone countries are totally focused on the new institutional architecture of the euro zone is preserved then the chances for major advances in the CSDP are minimal.
Europe in the Eyes of the Others
Europe is in crisis. The other global centers of power are in crisis too. The US’s foreign and defense policies more than ever will be defined by the size of the American public debt and the fact that China (America’s most powerful rival) is also its major creditor.
China’s political system is in stress and more than any other period in the last 20 years Chinese leaders fear social and political instability.
Putin’s return to Kremlin marked the end of Russia’s attempt to modernize its state and society.
While Turkey succeeded to position itself as an influential regional power, it now starts discovering the costs of its new position. The Arab Spring revealed the strategic vulnerability of Ankara.
In this context Europe’s global influence in the coming decade will be significantly influenced by the way others interpret the sources and the consequences of the crisis.
It is fair to observe that while the EU remains the United States’ closest global ally, Europe’s central role in America’s global strategy is a thing of the past. The crisis only strengthened America’s doubts about Europe’s reliability as a global partner. The US would be happy to see the EU more clear and assertive in its policies towards its neighborhood – Russia, North Africa, Near East, China – rather than being concerned only with its internal security. The USA does not understand the EU institutional build-up, does not understand who is responsible for what, which are the active institutions, and why EU is not dealing swiftly with the present crisis in a US fashion – bail-out, fiscal stimulus and government debt. So the Americans begin to believe the EU cannot function. (A good counter-point here is that the EU is definitely not the only political structure that the Americans do not understand). On the other side, the relations across the Atlantic are very deep, like a second nature for both sides, and will not be broken. Another reality facing both sides of the Atlantic is that there will be a massive downsizing of military across the West.
In summary, Europe is important for the US, but the US does not know how to operate with it, because it has trouble understanding its functioning and its expectations for EU as a partner are not met. From the US it seems the EU is quitting its assumed global obligations altogether.
The view from Russia can be summarized in the observation - “We thought we are rising with China, but we are falling with Europe” now popular among Moscow elites. In the last year’s Transatlantic Trends Survey the majority of Russian public tended to believe that Asia is more important for Russia than Europe. In the words of Russian expert Dmitri Trenin - “If Peter the Great was born today, he would make the new capital of Russia in Vladivostok”. The analysis of the Transatlantic trends data also demonstrates that when it comes to foreign policy the anti-Putin constituencies in the Russian society de facto endorse the foreign priorities of the current regime. The opposition public shares Kremlin’s distaste for value based foreign policy.
Ironically, Russia in many aspects seems more up-beat on EU that EU. Moscow sees the European crisis as a nexus of dilemmas: between welfare state and competitiveness, between redistribution from wealthy to poorer and efficiency of the use of these redistributed resources, between global responsibility of the EU as a soft power and its decentralized foreign policy-making, the immigration dilemma – immigrants create problems but are vital for demographics and competitiveness. But compared with the choices that Russia herself is facing today these dilemmas seem dynamically manageable, leaving Europe as a still very attractive place.
China does not know much about Europe and it is not sure that it is worth knowing more. Unlike USA, Japan and even Russia, EU is not a security threat and the attitude is ambivalent: if EU is unified, then it is helpful in creating a multi-polar world; if EU is disunited, then the world is bi-polar (Chimerica), but it is easier to deal with separate small countries.
What China has learned from the European crisis so far is that there are two Europes -one that works and it is called Germany and the other that does not work-the rest.
The dominance of Germany in the China-EU relations is one of the important effects of the crisis. The Chinese were very hopeful after the initial success of the Euro zone, then were disappointed that EU is not delivering as a global player worthy to form a pole in a multi-polar world, and have by now downsized their expectations for Europe to purely economic opportunities. Thus the European crisis is seen as more political than economic – a crisis of governance structure, a crisis of the political failure of EU to emerge as a global pole.
The view from Turkey is defined by the decades long saga of Turkey’s accession. It is EU which now seems like the “sick man of Europe”, as viewed from Istanbul. It is an essentially success (peace, prosperity, markets, security, even the Euro) story which has gone too far for its own good. Its decision-making structure looks cumbersome, its PR of its own image is very poor. With respect to countries like Turkey, if something between a full membership status and an outsider can be developed, would be very useful. Turkey still wants the EU carrot, but its attractiveness is decreasing by the day. Turkey’s newly discovered strategic vulnerability does not bring it close to Europe because when it comes to hard security Ankara prefers to talk bilaterally with Washington.
Actually, Turkey is looking at the UK as a possible example – not out of EU, but not involved in many of its core processes, waiting to see whether the EU will succumb to the crisis (“guns” scenario), or emerge stronger with better structure after it (“roses” scenario). And while waiting trying to develop strategies with respect to the scenarios.
The major conclusion to be drawn from the way other global players view the European crisis is that while everyone is in crisis, the EU is paying the highest price in terms of its global influence.
The crisis should force us into re-thinking the very meaning of power in the modern interdependent world. While in the last two decades European policy makers were focused on the notion of “soft power”-the power to inspire others and become model for them, the crisis forces Europe to pay attention to two important new aspects.
First, it seems now that some of the key features of the European model that we tend to view as universal-post-sovereign, secular, de-militarized are much more a European exception. And particularly in a situation of economic decline Europe’s role in the world will depend not only on its values but also on its hard power.
And secondly, the comparison between the way the markets reacted to the debt crisis of the US and the debt crisis in some EU member states makes us believe that in the globalized interdependent world, power is not simply the capacity to inspire and lead by example but also the capacity to spill your problems onto others. While the biggest market in the world and probably most exciting global political experiment the EU obviously at present lacks this capacity.
The conclusion is that while many security experts are over-optimistic that the crisis and the new decline in defense funding will almost automatically lead to more sharing and gives chances for more effective CSDP our analysis points towards the opposite trend. In our analysis if there is a lack of brave political leadership Europe risks to end up with lower defense budgets, nationalization of the foreign and defense policies as a result of electoral pressures and the marginalization of the EU as a global power.
Seminar I
The Impact of the Financial Crisis: How Real is the Risk of Political Destabilisation and Rise of Extremism?
Panel 1: The financial crisis and European politics. The Re-Nationalization of Europe
Panel 2: The Evidence: Research Data by Demos, Chatham House, Political Capital, and Counterpoint.
Panel 3: A View from the Periphery: Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, Hungary
Public discussion: The Impact of the Financial Crisis: How Real is the Risk of Political Destabilization and the Rise of Extremism?
Participants: Anna Ganeva, Executive Director, Centre for Liberal Strategies; Avraham Burg, Israeli author and political activist, former Speaker of the House, Jerusalem; Birgit Tkalec-Bekina, Bureau for Security Policy of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defence and Sports; Constantin Iordachi, Associate Professor, Co-director, Pasts Inc., Center for Historical Studies, CEU; Daniel Smilov, Programme Director, Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia; David Goodhart, Director, Demos, UK; Denis MacShane, MP, Former Europe Minister of the UK; Dessy Gavrilova, Director, Red House Centre for Culture and Debates; Ellen Riotte, Program Manager, Open Society Initiative for Europe, OSI – Brussels; Gertraud Auer Borea d'Olmo, Secretary General, Bruno Kreisky Forum; Goran Buldioski, Director, Think Tank Fund, OSI; Gordana Delić, Director, Balkan Trust for Democracy, GMF; Gustav Gressel, Bureau for Security Policy of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defence and Sports; Ivan Krastev, Chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies, Permanent Fellow, IWM; Johann Frank, Head, Bureau for Security Policy of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defence and Sports; Jonathan Birdwell, Senior Researcher and Head of the Citizenship Programme, Demos; João Carlos Espada, Director, Institute of Political Studies of the Catholic University of Portugal (IEP-UCP) and Editor, Nova Cidadania, Portugal; Chairholder of the European Parliament/ Bronislaw Geremek European Civilisation Chair at the College of Europe, Natolin campus, Warsaw; Luís de Sousa, Political scientist, Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon; Marius Calligaris, National Defence Academy Vienna; Marley Morris, Researcher, Recapturing Europe’s Reluctant Radicals project, Counterpoint, UK; Matthew Goodwin, Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; Milan Nic, Adviser to the State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Slovakia; Milena Nedeva, Head, Institute of Politics and Public Communications, Sofia; Nathan Koeshall, Senior Program Officer, Balkan Trust for Democracy, GMF; Nicolas Véron, Senior Fellow, Bruegel, Brussels; Visiting Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington DC; Péter Krekó, Director, Political Capital Institute, Hungary; Rainer Frank, Ministry of Defence and Sports; Rumiana Bachvarova, Head of the Bulgarian Prime-Minister Office; Sappho Xenakis, Research Associate, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, University of Oxford
Seminar II
How to Frame Europe Security Risks in the Midst of the Economic Crisis?
Panel 1: The Characteristics of the Crisis – Institutional, Political, and Economic.
Panel 2: The Crisis as a Risk and Opportunity for the EU: a View from Rome
Panel 3: The Crisis as a Risk and Opportunity for the EU: a View from Warsaw
Panel 4: How to frame Europe Security Risks in the Midst of the Economic Crisis?
Participants: Anna Ganeva, Executive Director, Centre for Liberal Strategies; Avraham Burg, Israeli author and political activist, former Speaker of the House, Jerusalem; Biljana Dakic Djordjevic, Program Officer, Balkan Trust for Democracy; Bridget Millman, Program Coordinator, Balkan Trust for Democracy; Constanze Stelzenmueller, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund; François Heisbourg, Special Advisor, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS); Chairman of the IISS and of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy; Gennaro Migliore, SEL, Head of Foreign Affairs Department; Georgy Ganev, Programme Director, Centre for Liberal Strategies; Gertraud Auer Borea d'Olmo, Secretary General, Bruno Kreisky Forum; Gordana Delić, Director, Balkan Trust for Democracy, GMF; Gustav Gressel, Bureau for Security Policy of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defence and Sports; Heather Grabbe, director of the Open Society Institute–Brussels and director of EU affairs for the Open Society Foundations; Ivan Krastev, Chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies, Permanent Fellow, IWM; Jakub Wiśniewski, head of Policy Planning, Polish MFA; Jan Zielonka, Professor of European Politics at the University of Oxford; Janusz Onyszkiewicz, former Minister of Defence and former vice-president of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, Poland; Josef Janning, Director of Studies, European Policy Centre; Lapo Pistelli, Chamber of Deputies MP, Democratic Party: Head of international relations and foreign affairs; Lucio Caracciolo, LIMES Director of Limes; Mark Leonard, Director, European Council on Foreign Relations, United Kingdom; Michele Comelli, IAI, Senior Fellow: European politics ; Milica Delevic, Director of the European Integration Office, Government of the Republic of Serbia; Pavlina Filipova, Program Officer, Balkan Trust for Democracy; Paweł Świeboda, President, Demos-EUROPA, Centre for European Strategy, Poland; Pietro Battistella, AgenParl, Journalist; Stefan Lehne, expert on European foreign policy and international security, visiting scholar, Carnegie Europe, Brussels; Torbjörn Sohlström, Director of the Ministers Office, MFA Sweden; Ulrike Guérot, ECFR Representative for Germany and Senior Policy Fellow;
Seminar III
EU in Crisis: How the Others View the EU Now?
Panel 1: The EU in Crisis – the View from the USA.
Panel 2: The EU in Crisis – the View from Russia
Panel 3: The EU in Crisis – the View from China.
Panel 4: The EU in Crisis – the View from Turkey.
Wrap-up session – taking stock of the discussion: Are the discussed views transformed in policies? Are they ready to act accordingly? What can we expect on the near future?
Participants: Andrei Piontkovsky, Executive Director of the Strategic Studies Center, Moscow; Anna Ganeva, Executive Director, Centre for Liberal Strategies; Avraham Burg, Israeli author and political activist, former Speaker of the House, Jerusalem; Biljana Dakic Djordjevic, Program Officer, Balkan Trust for Democracy; Bruce Jackson, President, Project on Transitional Democracies; Cengiz Günay, Senior Fellow, Austrian Institute for International Affairs; Dimitar Bechev, Senior Policy Fellow and Head of the Sofia Office, European Council on Foreign Relations; Georgy Ganev, Programme Director, Centre for Liberal Strategies; Gertraud Auer Borea d'Olmo, Secretary General, Bruno Kreisky Forum; Gordana Delić, Director, Balkan Trust for Democracy, GMF; Gustav Gressel, Bureau for Security Policy of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defense and Sports; Helfried Carl, office of the President of the Austrian National Assembly; Helmut Freudenschuss, Ambassador, office of the Federal President of Austria; Hermann Lattacher (MoD) ObstdG Mag.; Ivan Krastev, Chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies, Permanent Fellow, IWM; Ivan Timofeev, Program Director of the Russian International Affairs Council; Ivan Vejvoda, Vice-President/Programs, German Marshall Fund of the US; James C. O’Brien, Principal of Albright Stonebridge Group ; Johann Frank, Head, Bureau for Security Policy of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defense and Sports; Johann Pucher, Major General, Director of Directorate General for Security Policy at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Defense and Sports; Josef Janning, Director of Studies, European Policy Centre; Kadri Liik, Program Director for Wider Europe, European Council on Foreign Relations; Li Qiang, Professor, School of Government; Director, Centre for European Studies, Peking University; Mark Leonard, Director, European Council on Foreign Relations, United Kingdom; Otmar Hoell, Director, Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP); Robert Schuett, Austrian Federal Ministry for Defense and Sports; Selim Yenel, Ambassador, leader of the Permanent Delegation of Turkey to the EU; Shaoguang Wang, chair professor in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, non-official member of HKSAR's Commission on Strategic Development; Sinan Ulgen, Visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, Chairman of the Istanbul-based Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM); Soli Ozel, Professor at Istanbul Bilgi University's Department of International Relations and Political Science; Vessela Tcherneva, Spokesperson, Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Yvonne Toncic-Sorinj, Head of Department, Key Issues of the European Union, Institutions and institutional Questions, Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.
Seminar IV
Common Security and Defence Policy at Risk?
Introduction: Summary of Findings of Seminars I – III
Panel 1: Recent Initiatives of European Actors Regarding the Future of CSDP and Defence Industry.
Panel 2: What do EU’s Neighbours and Other Key Strategic Actors Expect from the EU’s CSDP?
Summary of Findings of the First Day
Plenary Discussion: Future of CSDP – What are the Key Questions and what are Possible Answers? How to Convince the Political Leadership and the Public?
Participants: Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, President of the New Eurasia Foundation in Moscow; Avrum Burg, Israeli author and political activist, former Speaker of the House, Jerusalem; Caspar Einem, President Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP); Christine Poussineau, Defence Attaché, Embassy of France;
Daniel Korski, Adviser to the High Representative; Dominik Jankowski, International Analyses Division, Strategic Analyses Department, National Security Bureau of Poland; Fyodor Lukyanov, Chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, editor in chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs; Gertraud Auer Borea d'Olmo, Secretary General, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue; Giovanni Faleg, Research Fellow at the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome and Visiting Researcher at CEPS; Gordana Delić, Director, Balkan Trust for Democracy, GMF; Helmut Schnitzer, Head Security Policy Department, Federal Chancellery of Austria; Hermann Lattacher, Director of the Bureau for Security Policy, Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports; Ivailo Kalfin, member of the European Parliament (S&D), vice-chair of the EP Committee on Budgets, EP rapporteur on the mandate of the European Investment Bank and on cyber security issues. Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria (2005 - 2009); Ivan Krastev, Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies; Permanent Fellow IWM; Jakub Wiśniewski, Head of Policy Planning, Polish MFA; Johann Frank, Head of Division for Security Political Analysis, Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports; Johann Pucher, Major General, Defence Policy Director, Federal Ministry of Defense and Sports; Jolyon Howorth, Visiting Professor of Political Science at Yale, Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics ad personam and Emeritus Professor of European Studies at the University of Bath (UK); Josef Janning, Mercator Fellow, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Berlin;
Kazimierz Sikorski, Director of Strategic Analyses Department, National Security Bureau Poland; Krzystof Lisek, Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence , European Parliament; Kurt Hager, Director Bureau for Security Policy, Ministry of Interior; Luigi Vitiello, Deputy Head of Defence, Aeronautic and Maritime Industries Unit of DG Enterprise and Industry, European Commission; Milica Delevic, director of the European Integration Office, government of the Republic of Serbia; Olof Ehrenkrona, ambassador and Senior Advisor to the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, H.E. Mr. Carl Bildt; Reinhard Trischak, Brigadier General, Director Military Policy Division, Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports; Soli Ozel, Professor at Istanbul Bilgi University's Department of International Relations and Political Science; Stefan Lehne, visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, former director general for political affairs at the Austrian Ministry for European and International Affairs; Stephane Laurent Gompertz, Ambassador of France to Austria; Suat Kiniklioglu, Chairman, Center for Strategic Communication (STRATIM), former Member of Parliament; Werner Fasslabend, President Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy (AIES)
Period: April 2012 - April 2013
Coordinators: Anna Ganeva, Ivan Krastev
Financing Organisations: Directorate for Security Policy of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and Sport; Balkan Trust for Democracy
Partners: Bruni Kriesky Forum fo International Dialogue; European Council on Foreign Relations