DOCENDO

DISCIMUS

5/2010/

Editorial BoardTanya MihaylovaBiliana DechevaDr. Zdravko PopovDr. Zlatko Dimitrov

Cover DesignPeyo Kolev

Sofia, 2011

-

-

, 2011

3DiPloMacy 5/2010

- ............................................................................. . -

- ..........................................................................................................................-

? - - .................. .

..................................

......................................

// // ......................................................................................................................

: - ..................................................................................

.......................................................

..................................................................................................................................

4 5/2010

coNTENTS

CONTENTSINTERVIEW

H.E. Mr. Geoffrey Keating ..................................................................................................

EUROPEAN UNIONMachiavelli in Brussels: A guidebook to the labyrinth of EU lobbying .......................Ambassador Zdravko Popov, Ph.D.

BALKAN SUBJECTSThe Danube strategy ........................................................................................................Johannes Eigner

From the Baltic Sea into the world? Conclusions from the Baltic Sea strategy for further macroregional strategies in Europe ...............................................Eckart D. Stratenschulte

The possibilities for Euro-Atlantic integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina ................Todor Tilev

SECURITY ISSUES

The Schengen Area an Opportunity and a Responsibility .........................................Svetlozara Kabakchieva

The EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) / Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in the Western Balkans and the Role of Bulgaria ..........Julide Shefket

GEOPOLITICS

Assessment of the current global situation: what the international community and Bulgaria can do? .....................................................................................Petko Draganov

The Current Situation on the Korean Peninsula ............................................................Ivan Ivanov

DIPLOMATIC TRAININGPublic Diplomacy in the Theory of International Relations and the Practice of the Bulgarian Diplomatic Institute ...............................................................................Department Public Events and cooperation

5DiPloMacy 5/2010

. . - , (2005 2010)

; , - . - ? , -?

; -, . - ; , . - . , 2004 ., , , . 2005 . , - , - 2009 . .

, - -? -? , ?

27 - , . , .

.

6 5/2010

, , , , - . , . - , , , . , - , .

, - - . , - - -; , .

- . ?

. , . - , - - ; . - - - .

- , - - . : , - , ; , .

: , - , , . - ?

, - . . , , . -, . - . , , , ,

7DiPloMacy 5/2010

. -

; , , . . .

, , , ; , , - -. , , , - , , .

, - - - . 2008 . , . 2008 - . , - ? ?

. , . - , ; - . , , , , . , . - . , . .

, -. . - , . . , . , .

. ; , , - . , - . , , -

8 5/2010

.

, - . 2004 . - ( ). , - , ? , , ?

, , , . , , - . , , ; .

, , -, . , , , .., - , - - , .

, , . , - , .. , . , ?

, - . , , - - , .

. - , . , 21- ?

, , , , , . ; . , , , .

; -

9DiPloMacy 5/2010

1981 . , . 2000 . , 2005 . - . - .

. , , . , , , .

, - . - ?

, , - , . , . .

, - . , , ? , ?

, , . 1 2007 , - . . , - , -, , , , .

10 5/2010

. - , ,

-

- ,

, , . , - - . , , , , , ( ) . - .

. - - , . , . (2004) (2005). , , - , More Machiavelli in Brussels (2010), - .

- . , , , .

, -, - . - , , , , , , - , . - . . , - 27 , , , , -, , .. , - . , ,

- ...

11DiPloMacy 5/2010

, , , .

, . - , , , , -, , . - , , .

? , V . ? , , -, - ; , ; . , , .

, , . , , , , - - . - , , , , , , - . , , , , - , . , , , , , , - . , , . , . 2400 , .

, , . - , - , , - .

. . . - . -, , .

- ,

- ...

12 5/2010

- ...

. , - , , . , , -. , , , , . (. ). - .

, , - . , , - . , , , , . . ? , , , ? , . , - ( , , , ..). , -.

. , - ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?. , , , .

- - 2010

. - . 1997 . 1990-1992 . . (1990-1991). 1996 2002 . . - (2002 2006). 2002 2003 . . 2003 2006 . . 2006-2010 . .

13DiPloMacy 5/2010

,

, .

, , - . 2010 , 19 2009 . : , ....

- . - . . , , - , .

(), -

, - . . , , . - (, , ..); ( - , - , , ) . , ( , - ), .

, - , , 2020.

- - - . - (, , , , , , ), , (-, , , , ).

14 5/2010

, . . - . - (: , , - , , .), .

2010 , -/ , , 2010 . . , . . , 2010 . , . . .

-

, . , . .

, 11 . , .

-. ; , -. , - , - .

-

. , , , , - , . - 2020. ( co2 - 3.5 -, ), . , - - . , . -

15DiPloMacy 5/2010

.

10% . , , (). , , . . - - .

, ,

. , - . . 2000 5000 . (, , , , , ..). , . - , , , .

. , ( ), ( , ) ( - ). - , , , . - -.

-

. , , . ; . - , , - , , . .

. -

16 5/2010

, . - . , - - , ; - , ..

, ? , : . , - V . , . , ; , . - .

, - . , , . , - . , - , - . - . - - . : !

- , . , , , ; - , ; , .

- , . , - , , , -, , , .. - ,

17DiPloMacy 5/2010

, , -, , , ..

, , -

. , .

, , , , , - , , , , -. - , - . ; -, ; .

- , , . . ; - - . - . - , . .

, - , - , , , , ..

, - , , . . . , , , acta Danubiana ( ), ..

, , - - , , , - , , ..

18 5/2010

. -

: ; ; .

, , : ; ; . , , -. - , .

, . , - . - ; , - .

; , -, , - .

- e 1960 . . ( ). - ( ). 1985 . - (1987-1992 ), - (1992 1995 ) (1999 2004 ). 1995 1999 . 2004 ; , - , 2005 . 2008 , . .

19DiPloMacy 5/2010

, -

. , , . . - , , - . () .

. () 1995 .1. - ,

-

() 1990 1991 ., - 29 1 1992 . , - , , . 5 1992 ., . , , - , , .

- , 1995 . , , , - , 1 1995 . - , - - . - , , - .

, , , - - 21 . , (), 14 1995 . . .

20 5/2010

11 , , , .

, - () - . . 4.

, , - . -, . - . - , . , , .

, 1031, . 20 1995 . , , () - - , - . , 1996 . (). 2004 . , .

(oScE) 1995, , , .

, , . 55 -, , , .

- . - , , - ( 1). 2 . 2008 . - .

26 2009 . - , .

1 , -. 800 .

2 , , , , , , , , , - .

21DiPloMacy 5/2010

2. ,

, , - (), 51% , () - - - 49% . 2000 . , , .

( ) - . 1999 . - . . , , . .

, 10. , . , . .

, , . , , . , .

1991 . 44% ( ), 31% 17% , 6% - . . 100 000 , .

2000 . - 3 922 205 , 48% , 37,1% , 14,3% 0,6% .

- . : - (, )3, - . - . .

, , . - ( , ).

3 (), (), (). , .

22 5/2010

4, - , - . , - - . , .

-, - . - , , . -5.

1 2006 . ( ). - , -.

: , , , , - , , 1990, , , - , , .

. 1. -

. , . 25 2006 . - - () , 16 2008 . . , 2008 . , .. , . - . 2010 .

29 2006 . - , .

, 22 2010 . .

4 ().5 - , - -

.

23DiPloMacy 5/2010

2.

-, : , , - , .

, : , 1 . , SFoR - EUFoR, - .

3. , 2007 . .

, . 2008 . . - 6, : - ; ; - ( , ).

, 2010 . -. , .

, - 69 , , 7 - .

2009 . - - . . - - , , .

6 - . - , - . .

7 - , , .

24 5/2010

, - , . 2003 . .

22 2005, - , , - - .

9 2009 . , . - , - - . . 20 21 . , .

, -, . - , , - . - . , - , - . - , . , . , .

, , , -.

. - 1991 . , - , , , . , , .

, , , - . ,

25DiPloMacy 5/2010

, , . , . - . -, , , , . . - ( ). . , .

. 1. - -

, - . , - . . , , , .

2. - - . . , , - . , - , . - .

, .

3. - , - , . , , , , . - 2006 . , - . , -

26 5/2010

, . .

2010 . , , - .

4. - 2000 . . - . , 400 000 . , - .

5. - , - . , . - , , , - - . , , . , .

6. - 500 - , -. - , - . . .

V. , 1. , , -

, -

, . . - 8

8 1992 .

27DiPloMacy 5/2010

. 14 1992 . , - . , .

, , - , - , 15 1992 . . . - .

2. -

. , , . . , .

3.

. - - . - .

- , . 1996 . 2 . . . - (iPTF) (EUPM). (SFoR) , (EUFoR), SFoR.

. - . - 2006 . .

13 2009 . .

28 5/2010

, - . - 63 . . , , , , . , - .

4. -

, , , . ( ), . , .

, , , , , .

5. - , , ,

EUFoR, . - .

, . .

, , , . , , , . - - - . , , .

- . 2010 . . - .

6. -

, - . ,

29DiPloMacy 5/2010

, - . - , , , .

, -- - , - . , , . . , , .

, , . - , .

.

30 5/2010

? ...

? -

.- . 2009 .

, , .. 2010 ."1 - , - , , , , . , 2009 ., "2.

. , - , , , . -, , . , , , .

. , , . , - , -

1 18-19 2009 .: , . 13 , : 27.08.10

2 29-30 2009 .: , . 11 , : 27.08.10

31DiPloMacy 5/2010

? ...

. . , , .3 , . , - , . , .4

. . , . - , . - :

, , .5

, . , - - , , , . - , , . , , , , -- . , , , - , .. - , . - . - : , , . : , ( ) / .

( ) , . -, .

3 . , : 01.10.2010

4 . . - NUTS 2006 /EU-27 , , - : 01.10.2010

5 , : , -, 17-18.09.2009 . , : 1.9.10

32 5/2010

? ...

. - ( ); ( ); -, (. , ); , (. , ).6

, , ( ) , .. -:

" , . , -, - , , - , ."7

, - - - . , () , , .

" , , ( ), , , / , ()."8

, - . , , , , -, ? , -- , , . , , - , , , -. , , , . . , , . , , - ; , .

, -

6 9 , . , : ? (cEPS) 297, 2008, . 2 - 4

7 : http://ocw.unu.edu/programme-for-comparative-regional-integration-studies/introducing-regional-integration/regions-defined/ - / / /, : 1.9.10

8 , .: , , 2009 : 4, p. 17

33DiPloMacy 5/2010

? ...

, . , , :

, , - ."9

, - . ; , (. , ), - ( , . ) , , ., .

, , , - . , , , .

: , ,

, , . , , , , , . .

, - . , , . , 2010 ., :

... - ; - ; ; -; , - .10

, -

9 , , , , coM (2009) 248 , . 2

10 , : : , - , , 13 2010, , . 4

34 5/2010

? ...

. . , / . , .

, , , ( ) . , - () -, , .. . - , , . , .11 - , , , - . , , - ( , , , , -), .

, .. , . , , . , - : , - (. ); (. -, - ), , - , . , , , () .

" , : . ; , .. , - , - . , .

11 , : : ? ceSPi 65/2010, 2010, . 4

35DiPloMacy 5/2010

? ...

."12 , .

, , , .

, , , . , ? , , - .

: : -

, . , , .. , . , , , . , ; - , :

" , - . . -, , , - ."13

: , , , . - , . , - . - . , . . - ,

12 , , , , coM (2009) 248 , . 5

13 coM (2009)248 , . 4

36 5/2010

? ...

. - - , , . , - - , . - ( ).

, , , , , . , .

, - . , , , , - -, , ,

? ( )

, - . , , , - . , , , - . , , 3,000 -. , , , .

-, , . . , , , , , , ; - , , , - , ; , , , - ?

37DiPloMacy 5/2010

? ...

, -, . , -. - , , - - .14

- - ,

, . - - . : , : -, - . - .

, , , , , . - , , , , .15

, -. , , - - , . .

- - , , (acquis communautaire) - . , () - , , .

. , , , -. , - , .

14 , : < http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/documents_en.htm>, -: 8.9.10

15 , : , . - , SWP- 2008: , : 01.10.2010)

38 5/2010

? ...

, , - . , , . , , -, - , . - 2014 . - . , , . , , .

- , .

, , -, ; , . , . , 15 160, 80 ( ). , - 80 , 15 . - , , .

, . ; , , -.

? . -

, , - . , () 16 , , .

, ,

16 , : . - , : . 11/2009, . 71 - 87

39DiPloMacy 5/2010

? ...

, ( ), , - , , , , , , . -, - , . , - , (), - -, ( ), - - (, , ), ( ), , , . -, , , - .17 , - , . , .

, , . - , , . , , , , . , - / . , , , , , - - , - . , 18, -

17 - : , . -, , < http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/documents_en.htm>, : 8.9.10

18 : , .; : (EUSDR). : , . -, 2010 ., S. 3. : < http://ec.europa.eu/regio-nal_policy/cooperation/danube/documents_en.htm>, : 8.9.10

40 5/2010

? ...

( ) - ( ) , .

, -

( ) , , , - -, .19 , , , , , . , - . - , . , , 20.

-,

, ( ) . , , , . - , . , , - , , . -, . , . .

,

, - , ,

19 : , - , -: , , 29.01.2008 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/organes/peti/peti_20080129_0900_audition.htm>, - 8.10.10; , -: . . SWP 13, 2007 ., S. 30f; , : : . . 14/2009

20 : (01/2010); (): , : 01.10.2010

41DiPloMacy 5/2010

? ...

"21. , , , .

( ) , , , -. - , : 2011 . , 2013 . , 2015 . , 2018 . 2020 . .22 , , 6 , , - , . - : 2011 . ; 2016 . ; 2018 . , , 2019 . . , , , - [ ].

,

, - . , , , . . , - , , .. . , . , , "23.

. , , - , . , (. -) ,

21 , coM (2009) 248 , . 222 : , /,: . -

?, FG 1 2009/5, -, 2009, . 10

23 : , : 29 2010 ., . 10

42 5/2010

? ...

, . , .

" , - - , , , ."24

. . , . - , . - , : - , !. , , .

24 , : : , , / 1991 ., . 6

. - - 1993 . , Verein, Europische Akademie - . , , GEA. , -, . - . . - .

43DiPloMacy 5/2010

2010 25 -

. , .

, - , , , , - . - , - , - , , .

14 1985 1 -

(, -), - .

, -. 14 1985 . , , , (, ) .

19 1990 . - 2, 1995 . 7 ( ). - 26 1995 - . (, , , , , ) , .

- , .. , , - , , - (),

1 14 1985 2 J l 239, 22.9.2000

44 5/2010

.

- 2010 . 25 ( -

, ): , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . .. . - (, ) - . , . .

- .

, -. , - . - - , . , , - - , , ().

. 1999 . 1997 3, : -, ( Vi) ( iV) . , , , . - . .4 , , , . - , .

(Schengen Aquis). - . :

- .

.

3 OJ, C 340, 10.11.1997

45DiPloMacy 5/2010

-, . , - , .

4, 1 2009 , - , - . . , - . .77 5 , - , , - ; - ; 19 , , .

. -

- - , . , - Schengen acquis:

- . , , 6 , , .

- , ( );

- , , .. - (, )

- , (, )

- - -, - , , .

.8

, : - -

4 oJ, c 306, 17.12.20075 oJ, c 83, 30.3.2010

46 5/2010

, , , , - -. , - ( ) . - -. . .4 - 6 , , , ( - ), , , II, , , . , 1, () , , , - , . 2003 - (, , , , , , , , , ).

19987 . ,

::

(.. );

: , - , , - (.. ).

, , - (ScH-EVal). - .

, --, , ,

6 OJ, L 157, 21.06.20057 Decision of the Executive committe of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing committee on the evaluation

and implementation of Schengen

47DiPloMacy 5/2010

, . (ScH-EVal).

-. - - , , , - .

-

, - , .

-, - , . , , , -, , , , - -, . , .

, 2007 , .

: -, , (, ), , . - . . 2009 . : , , , - , . , - . - , . , -, - - . .

- , - . . 2010 - -

48 5/2010

. . .

- , , , - . - , , .

-, , - , . , 8, - , - , -- , , , - . - - , , , - , .

, - :

. 4 - , , , - (1.01.2007 .). () 539/2001 15 2001 , , -, , 9, , , , (.. .).

8 oJ, l 243/2, 15.9.20099 l 81, 21.3.2001

49DiPloMacy 5/2010

. , , . , , , . - , , . 10 15 2010 , , , .

, - , - , . , - . , () 810/2009 ( ).

? , , 90 180 . , () , , - ( ). , , ( , -, - -).

, ( D) - . , , , , .. , , -. , 265/2010 562/2006 -11. , - , , ( 1 , ( ), , .

, - , , -

10 oJ, l 329, 14.12.2010 11 oJ, L 085 , 31/3/2010

50 5/2010

- () 767/2008 9 2008 () - (- )12 2008/633/ 23 2008 () - , 13. - () . - - // Eurodac ( ).

() - . ViSioN, ViS mail, - -. - .

, - , 10 - , . - . 10 . , , - .

ViSioN (- ViS mail, ViSioN), , - - .

. - , - . - , -.

- . - , . - .

, - (

12 J l 218, 13.8.200813 OJ, L 218, 13.8.2008

51DiPloMacy 5/2010

3 - ). - . - . . - , , .

- , , - , , - , - .

, , , :

.

- e - . - -. , 2005 2008 .

52 5/2010

:

-

() - . .

, , : , . , . - -, - . , , , -. , , .

, , - . , .. . - - , . , - . , -, , , , - .

, , , , , . , - , , . , , , , , , , .

, - 45 ,

: ...

53DiPloMacy 5/2010

. , . , - , - . , , - . . . : [] , [] ,

1. .

, , - , -, . -.

, , . - , - . , , - -, . , 1.3% 1.6% , - 4% , 5% 6% . () , , , , .

, , . , - , . 90% , , , -. 60% . , - .

, , - , - , , , .

, - , ( , (); ; ).

: ...

54 5/2010

. - -, - -. 1995 . 577 11% ; 2007 . 2.4 , 20% . -, .

2. , , ,

. - . , -: . , , , - , - . 145 2008 ., 40 - 80 , , . , , -, . , - .

- - -. , 61.5% ; , - . , , - , , , . - : , 92% .

, , - . , . , . (). , , .

: ...

55DiPloMacy 5/2010

. , , , . -, , - , -, . , , , .. . Sol omnibus lucet, - !

, . - - : , , , , - . , , , , .. - , , , , , -, . , , -. , . , -, , , 5.6 , . . , - ?

, , . , , , , - . , , . , 1,400 [ , - ], , , . , 39.5 86 , . , - -, , . , .

-

: ...

56 5/2010

, 33.2 2004 . 148.8 2007 . , 2007 . 10% .

, - . , , . . , , , .

- , , . , 80% ; , . - - 20% 2020 . , , - , , , .

- ( ). 2030 . , - , - . : - 70% , . - , .

, . , , - . , - (15- -). , , - . , . , 1990 2006 . 40% ( 3.5 2), 20% ( 1.5 1.2). - - - . - - ,

: ...

57DiPloMacy 5/2010

.

3. .

, , - . , . , - .

? , , . - . , - , . , , , , . - , -, . , - 1.5 , . , , . , - , , . , , , - .

4. ( ) . -

, () , . , , .

, , , -. , -, , - - , , - . - . ,

: ...

58 5/2010

, - -, -, .

, , - , - , - , , , . , - , - 2015 . , , .. - . .

- , -, . , . , - . - ; , -. , , - , .. , , .

, , - , . . , - , / . , , - . , , , - -, - , , . , -, , , , .

, , . - - . , ,

: ...

59DiPloMacy 5/2010

, - - . , - . , . , - . , , .

- , . - , . , , .

, -, . , - , .

. , , .

, , - -, .

, , - - .

, , - - - -. , , - .

, , ; , , -, , .

, -, , - .

: , , , , . , , . , , . , 20 ,

: ...

60 5/2010

- , , - , - . , - .

, 192- -, . , , , . , - , , 1945 ., , , , , .

. . 1993 1998 -, . 1998 - , 2005-2008 . - 2000 . - . 2001 2005 - - . , - . - () 1 2009 .

: ...

61DiPloMacy 5/2010

- 60- XX

. -, -. (2006 . 2009 .) , , . , - - , , .

- , , . - , .

-

1992. -, , 1994 ., () 2005 ., . - - 2007 . -: (1) ( ), (2) (3) / . ( 2008 .) (, , , , ) - , . , .

, -

62 5/2010

, . , , -, . - , - - . ( 15 000) . , 1991 ., - , . , 30- , 1987 .

- ( - 200- ), , . , (1989 . 1994 .) - -. . , . 1995 1996 . 1997 ., 200 000 300 000 (cumings, 2004, . 179).

1994 . - , 1000 . - , , . KEDo (Korea Energy Development organization), , , , 2002 ., -. 90- . - (cumings, 2007).

, 2002 . , - , . , . , .

- 2003 . - . -

63DiPloMacy 5/2010

. , , (litwak, 2008, . 106). , , 2006 ., 20 - , , , . - , , , .

. - , 2007 ., 6- . 2008 . , 11 2008 . , , .

, - , . 6- , . (Bolton, 2009), , - . , - 6- , , . , - .

5 2009 . - 1718 1695 , 25 2009 . , . (PSi). 1874 12 2009 . , - - . , , - 1953 .

1874 - . , 2009 . 6- .

64 5/2010

, . , - . - .. , 6- , . , - , - . , .

2009 . 60- , 6- , . - , - . 2009 . . -, . , 6- , 2005 . , , - , . .

11 2010 . , - (1950-1953.) , - . o 1993 ., , , , . (cumings, 2004, . 69). - -, , . - , , . , 1994 . , , . , - , - , . , . 1999 . , 300 . - , 2000 . - ,

65DiPloMacy 5/2010

, (MTcR), - 180 . (cumings, 2004, . 85) - , , .

11 2001 . , - , (compellence) (coercive) . , - () . , (pre-emptive) , - . , , . - , , - , . - , - . (). 1993 ., 1 150 -1 .

, - , . . , , , - , , , .

, - . , - , , - . - . . , 1993 .

, , . - 1996 . , , , - (cumings, 2004, . 101). -

66 5/2010

, , . .

, - . , , , , . , , - . , - . sui generis . - --, - . (cumings, 2007) , . , .

, . - . . , . - , . - , .

. - 2009 . / /, 1998 ., / /. , 2009 ., - / , 2008 . - /. , , - 65 , .

- , , -

67DiPloMacy 5/2010

. , -, . - . . . - , , .

, , -

2003 . , . , , , . - , .

6- - , - . - , - , . , (, , ) , - . , -, . , , . , . , - 1718 2006 ., . 2009 . 1874. , , . . . , - . (lee Mi-sook, 2009, . 7)

,

68 5/2010

. - - . , , , . 1998-2002 . -, . 2000 . - , . - 6- . - . 2009 . , - , .

1998 ., - . 2009 . , , - . 2009 . , - - . , - 6- . , . - - , - (Shin Jung-wha, 2009, . 14).

6- . - , - . , , .

6- , , - . 2000 . , . 2001 . . 1874, 2009 . 2006 . , .

69DiPloMacy 5/2010

2009 . 1283/2009 329/2007 , - ( ) , . . 2005 ., 2006 . 2007 . .

,

(we dont negotiate with evil, we defeat it), , . -, :

1: - -. . , . , - , , . .

2: / / - . , , . - , 1 1 . pre-emption - , - , .. , , .

3: , - , , - . , - - . , . , , - , , - " " -

70 5/2010

. , ( 1) -

. , . , , . , , - ( 1 3), . - , . - , - . , ( 1), ( 3). - , - , , - .

, - , 3 . , , - , , , .

O .

71DiPloMacy 5/2010

() ()

, .1

, () - 18 2010 . , 17-19 2010 ., , , . 90- . - .. , .. - . , , - 1991 . - , - . . - - , - - .

1. /: - - -

1 - 18 2010 .

() ...

72 5/2010

. () () 6- -- () 1954 ., - 1960-1962 . 1970 . (), - - . 1986 . (), . (). 1992 . . - , -- . , . - 19 1992 . (), .. ,2 . . 1996 . , , 1997 . , . , 4 1998 . - , , , , .3 . - , , . - - . - , 3-4 1999 . - (). 1 1999 . () , . /, (). - .. (), . . -

2 , , .

3 -, 3-4 1998 .

() ...

73DiPloMacy 5/2010

- , . 2001 . : (), () (). - 16 2002 . +, .4 . 2003 . . - , 2007 . . .5 - , : - . () , . () () . , , , , , - . : , .

- , , - , - .

2. / -

. . 1991 . - . , , , -. , , , ,

4 ( DSacEUR).5 .

, -.

() ...

74 5/2010

. , - / . , . 1991 . -- , - , , . , . - . , - . - , , .

- 1993 . ,6 , , . - , , , , .

. 1994 . , , , , - . , , , (EUaM). 14 1994 . , - , EUaM. , - . , 5 1994 . , . - EUaM , , . - . , ,

6 - .

() ...

75DiPloMacy 5/2010

. EUaM - , . - , , EUaM, - , . , - -- .7 1995 ., .8

1997 . . alba, , - . , . - , .

1998-1999 . - , . - . 1999 . , , - - -. , - .

10 1999 . . , , , , - . , - .

, , , -

7 Santer, J. The EU's Security and Defence Policy. How to Avoid Missing the 1996 Rendez-vous. NaTo Review, November 1995

8 Neville-Jones, P. Dayton, IFOR and Alliance Relations in Bosnia. Survival 38.4., 1997

() ...

76 5/2010

. - . , , . , - - (), . 2008 . , , , .9

3. , -

, . , - , 2003 . .

3.1. 3.1.1. EUPMEUPM , , -

UNMiBH . EUPM 1 2003 ., , 8 2009 ., 31 2011 . EUPM - 4 .10

EUPM e -, - . , , , , . EUPM - , - . , , .

, . , . , - . 13 2009 .

9 () , .

10 , , .

() ...

77DiPloMacy 5/2010

() () ), . , - - . 1997 . - .. , . - , - . , , . , EUPM, , , /.

3.1.2. Altheaalthea ,

, SFoR 1551 9 2004 . 1575 22 2004 . , althea KFoR . 2 2004 ., 20 - 11 5 .12

althea / . . - : , - . . althea .

althea - , , , - . , , . - , - . , - - ,

11 , , , , , , , , , -, , , , , , , , , - .

12 , , , .

() ...

78 5/2010

, .

3.2. 3.2.1. Concordia concordia , ,

llied Harmony , +. 31 2003 . - 15 2003 ., 13 - 13 14 14.

, , .

, - . - -, - . , - , . , , , - .

concordia , - . , concordia . 15

3.2.2. Proxima Proxima

concordia, . - Proxima i: 2003 . 2004 . Proxima ii - 2004 . - 2005 . Proxima i Proxima ii 22 24 - 4 . 16

Proxima , . - , - , .

3.2.3. (EUPAT)

13 , , , , , , , , -, ,

14 , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 +, DSacEUR

16 , ,

() ...

79DiPloMacy 5/2010

EUPaT 15 2005 . - 14 2006 ., Proxima 16 - . 17

EUPaT . . - , - .

3.3. EULEX EUlEX - , . -

16 2008 ., 1244 . . 2009 . , -, . : - , . , EUlEX; - .

. - , . . , , , .

, , , , - EUlEX, - . EUlEX . EUlEX .18 3 2010 . EUlEX .19

4. / 1 2007 . -

, . - -

17 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

18 ,

19 () - , EUlEX - .

() ...

80 5/2010

/ . , , , - . - , . , - .

- / , , , , - , . 3 6- , . -, . - - althea , 115 . 6 - 20 - . EUlEX 71 , 43 28 , . EUPM 2- .

, - . , , - . , - , , . , , , , , , .

/ , 90- , -

() ...

81DiPloMacy 5/2010

- , . , , - . , 90- , , - . - , - . 1999 . , , . : . .20

6 , . , - , , . - . , - , .

- , - / . , , . - , . / , -, , , - , -. , 3 6- - , .

20 Remarks by Javier Solana, ESDP@10: what lessons for the future?, Brussels, 28 July 2009

() ...

82 5/2010

- .

- / - - , :

, - - , , , - - . , - , , , , . - . - , - . , - , .

-, - - / , , .

O .

() ...

83DiPloMacy 5/2010

,

, . , - , , . , , - , , - , , , , - , , , .

- 1856 . london Times. , . - , . - , - . 1918 . , - (open diplomacy) .. , . , - . 50- XX .

1965 . - (Edmund Gullion), Fletcher School of law and Diplomacy Edward Murrow center of Public Diplomacy. : ... -

...

84 5/2010

. ; ; ; - ; , ; 1. - . , - , , .

, -, - , , .

, . - - . - , , . . . - - . - , , . , , , , , , , , , , -.

, - , . , , , .

,

1 Public diplomacy deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. it encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the process of intercultural communications [1]

...

85DiPloMacy 5/2010

-. ( ), (ENa), ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ), ( -) .

-- - , , .

, , - //, , , - , - .

- , - , , , , --, (SaM) , , , (cEDEFoP) - , , - (iRiS) - , .

, , , - , , , - .

- , - ( 19942000), - (1989-1994), . - , (2001-2005) , - - . , , - , (2003-2006), . - , , . - , . , . , ,

...

86 5/2010

. -

, .

- , , . , - , - (2001-2005), , , - , ), (- , , . , ), ( , -, - , , ), (. - , - , , - -, ), (- - , - , . , , - , - - , - , - ) (- , (cNRS)-, . , - XViii ). - , , .

- , , ( - - , - , academia Sinica Europaea-, - , - , , - - ).

, , -, . , , . - .

...

87DiPloMacy 5/2010

- , , , , - .

- , -, - -. . - 2005 . 2007 . - - . 70 . , .

2008 . - . , , , , , , . - - , , , - .

, , . , - . (. . , .)

2008 . / - / . ( .. ) , - , - , - , , . . , . , . , , - - .

- , , , , , , , , , -, . 70 000 , , , , . . -

...

88 5/2010

, 2004 . . 2007 . , European Foreign affairs Review, European Journal of international Relations, Foreign affairs, Politique Etrangre, , Science et Vie, Scientific american. - . // //.

- , , , -. - Facebook, , .

- - , - .

:[1] Public Diplomacy Before Gullion: the Evolution of a Phrase, Nicholas cull http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/060418_public_

diplomacy_before_gullion_the_evolution_of_a_phrase/[2] The First Resort of Kings. american Diplomacy in the Twentieth century, Richard T.

arndt[3] Public diplomacy: seven lessons for its future from its past by Nick cull, http://ics.leeds.

ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=7&paper=3028

...

DOCENDO

DISCIMUS

5/2010

July/December

MiNiSTRy oF FoREiGN aFFaiRSREPUBlic oF BUlGaRia

DiPloMacyDiPloMaTiciNSTiTUTE

JoURNal

90 5/2010

iNTERViEW oN THE occaSioN oF 20 yEaRS DiPloMaTic RElaTioNS ...

Interview on the occasion of 20 years diplomatic relations Ireland-Bulgaria

with H.E. Mr. Geoffrey KEATING, Ambassador of Ireland in Bulgaria (2005-2010)

Twenty years are an important stage of a mans development, a stage when it becomes clearer what one wants, and how to achieve his goals. How would you describe 20 years of bilateral relations between Ireland and Bulgaria? Can you say that both countries had successfully passed the stage of adolescence and are now in a more mature state?

i would describe the growth in our relations as dramatic, helped by the transformation in the political configuration of Europe and by our joint membership of the European Union. Twenty years ago our ambassador in Moscow was accredited to Sofia and i think it would have been hard then to foresee us opening a resident mission in Sofia. in fact, for the past five years we have had a resident embassy here. ireland was closely involved in the negotiation of Bulgarias accession to the European Union, particularly during our Presidency in 2004, and now we work together as equal partners in Europe. in 2005 President Parvanov paid the first visit by a Bulgarian Head of State to ireland and this was reciprocated last year by President Mcaleese. all of this is evidence of the rapid development of the relationship in a relatively short period.

Do you share the view that in the foreign policy of a country the geopolitical balance and pragmatism play crucial role? In this context what is the future of our bilateral relations? Is there potential for stimulation and in which areas?

in a Union of 27 Member States and that number is likely to rise in the coming years it is important that we try to identify common interests with other Member States across the complex agenda of the Union. it seems to me that we can only do this by regular dialogue with each of our partners on a bilateral basis.

There is also scope to develop our economic relations. a healthy economic relationship, in my view, is the basis of a healthy relationship in other areas, whether in allowing for greater people-to-people contact or cultural exchange, for example. levels of trade between ireland and Bulgaria are still comparatively low although they have grown significantly over the past decade. levels of irish investment in Bulgaria have been hit by the current economic crisis but i suspect that in the medium term there will be renewed interest in the potential of the Bulgarian market. Bulgaria continues to attract significant numbers of irish tourists throughout the year and this has an important economic, as well as cultural, dimension.

i am convinced that closer cooperation in the fields of education and research can yield a range of benefits. in part, because this type of activity promotes better knowledge and understanding between us but also because of the real and demonstrated benefits to be derived from international collaboration in these areas.

91DiPloMacy 5/2010

iNTERViEW oN THE occaSioN oF 20 yEaRS DiPloMaTic RElaTioNS ...

The Celtic harp and the Christian cross in a circle are symbols of Ireland and examples of the amazing skills of the Irish to combine different things and create symbols with national importance. How do you combine the national and European interests?

We have never seen any contradiction between our national and our European interests. We have always understood that our future prosperity and peace lay within the European Union. Most obviously, membership of the Union has allowed us to develop our economy, by opening new markets to us and by giving us the support to invest in our infrastructure and in our most important resource, our people. So in the space of thirty years, we moved from being among the poorer Member States to one of the more prosperous.

Equally important, in my view, by providing us a wider context, it has also helped to transform our often troubled relationship with our closest neighbour, the United Kingdom, and to negotiate a settlement in Northern ireland. again, i think we should never forget that while the founders of the European communities put forward certain specific economic proposals, their aim was to make war in Europe unthinkable and in this it is surely obvious that the European project has been an outstanding success.

The 50 years history of the EU has many referendums on membership in the community, on the single European currency, on the European constitution and on other issues, but the Irish referendums are of particular importance. What had provoked the negative votes for the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty and what influenced the positive result after that?

any survey carried out shows that the irish remain among the most positive supporters of the European Union. They have every reason to be. So, it can be surprising when we appear to reject proposals to make the Union work better. We are obliged to hold a referendum when there are changes to our constitutional position. This is something that is not automatic in every Member State. i personally am glad that i have the right, as an irish citizen, to be consulted on such fundamental changes.

it is clear that the irish electorate had concerns about the implications of the Nice and lisbon Treaties and, in the case of lisbon, it is equally clear that they were not prepared to vote yes to something that they did not understand. So, the irish Government set out to meet the concerns that people had and to explain clearly what was involved in each case. as a result, the electorate gave their consent in second referendums.

While i understand that some will be impatient that a small Member State can cause delays in this way, not only as an irish citizen but also as a citizen of Europe, i rejoice that we respect the wishes of the smaller Member States. it means that the Union we are part of is very different to the empires of previous centuries or other political configurations that have been imposed on Europe in the past century.

Before the onset of the global crisis the Irish economy is considered one of the most balanced in the group of EU industrialized countries. In 2008 Ireland was the first of 15 countries of the Euro zone to experience the hard recession. In 2009 the Irish government adopted austerity measures for the reduction of expenses and financial stabilization. Which factors had negative impact on the successful Irish economic model? What measures included the economic stabilization plan and what results it achieved?

By the early 1990s, the irish economy had become highly competitive. This was achieved

92 5/2010

through fiscal discipline and intelligent economic policy, as well as the support of our European partners. The result was a period of exceptionally high economic growth the period when ireland was often referred to as the celtic Tiger that allowed ireland to catch up other western European countries in terms of income and living standards. in recent years, however, growth in the economy was driven less by exports than by domestic consumption and we saw a significant erosion of our international competitiveness. as part of the eurozone, we enjoyed very low interest rates. This encouraged greater consumption and also led to an unsustainable property boom. When this collapsed, it had a serious impact on our banking sector. The Governments finances also suffered a drop in revenue, resulting in a high budget deficit.

The Government had no choice but to act quickly on a number of fronts. it had to stabilize the banking sector which it has done by establishing an agency to take over the impaired property portfolios of the banks. it had to correct the fiscal imbalance and so took a series of steps to cut expenditure and to raise revenue. it also needed to ensure that we regained our lost competitiveness.

The results are encouraging. our exports have held up well and there are already signs of an export-led recovery. We have seen an improvement in our competitive position, achieved in part through reductions in salary costs in both the public and private sectors. While challenges remain, there is consensus that the situation is under control and that we have responded with determination to the most difficult economic crisis in our modern history.

The EU enlargement is considered great geopolitical success. The Irish presidency in 2004 played crucial role in negotiating the terms of the fifth enlargement in Central and Eastern Europe (including Bulgaria and Romania). Do you think the enlargement process should continue and in what direction? Does the EU need to clarify its identity, position, role, and future vision of the world?

if you go to the British war cemeteries in Sofia or Plovdiv, you will see the graves of young irish men who died here less than a hundred years ago because of war sparked by events in the Balkans. it seems to me that no one in Europe should be indifferent to the situation in the Western Balkans or to the importance of ensuring the European perspective of the countries of the region. as i have already said, the founders of our Union were clear that their objective was to make war in Europe impossible and we have seen how the European Union has been able to bring about the peaceful transformation of a divided Europe.

The EU has always been clear about the values on which it is based and which inform its vision, and that it is open to welcoming other States that share those values. So, in that sense, i do not believe we have to worry too much about identity or position or role and so on, but i do welcome the fact that the lisbon Treaty should allow the Union to react more quickly and with greater coherence to the global challenges that face us all.

In the last year the Bulgarian government has shown political will for reforms that are gathering speed. Constant and continued efforts are required to stop the yo-yo effect progress in one moment and decline in the other. Do you think the Bulgarian government would manage to fully implement the reforms?

Without doubt, the political will demonstrated by Government has been impressive. Based on our experience in ireland, i would argue that reform is not something you ever fully implement, it is an ongoing process that has to adapt as new challenges arise.

iNTERViEW oN THE occaSioN oF 20 yEaRS DiPloMaTic RElaTioNS ...

93DiPloMacy 5/2010

The global world brought different problems. To address them consolidated efforts in the international arena and experienced diplomats are needed. What criteria and requirements must meet a diplomat from the 21 century?

Despite all the changes in international diplomacy, i suspect that the qualities and skills needed in a diplomat are relatively straightforward and have not changed all that much over the centuries. That is why we have not yet become obsolete and still are needed in a changing world. While it is evident that technology has transformed the way we operate, i am not so sure that it has changed the substance of what we do.

a diplomat still needs to be a good listener and an acute observer, to have the judgement to decide what is important and the ability to report accurately and speedily on the issues of importance. Skill in negotiation is necessary but so too is cultural sensitivity and the ability to communicate across cultural and linguistic barriers. a diplomat must also have the conviction, integrity and courage to give unwelcome advice.

Your Excellency, you are a true friend of the Diplomatic Institute. How would you evaluate the work of the Institute and how do you see its work in future?

i have always been impressed by the range of activities carried out by the institute, by the role it plays in training the new generation of diplomats, and in bringing issues on the international agenda to a wider public audience. i hope it continues to flourish as useful branch of Bulgarian diplomacy and i wish the institute continuing success in the future.

Five years in Bulgaria successful mandate, rich professional and personal experience. What event, person or fact would you remember? Is there something Bulgarian that you would take back with you in Ireland?

it has been a remarkable time to be in Bulgaria. i will always remember standing in alexander Nevski Square on the morning of 1st January 2007 when Bulgaria acceded to the European Union. i will always remember travelling through the mountains and valleys of this beautiful country and discovering something of its rich and complex heritage. But, without doubt, the most precious thing we take from Bulgaria are the friendships we have made here and our memories of a warm, generous and resilient people.

Geoffrey Keating joined the Irish Foreign Service in 1981. In the course of his career, he has been posted to the Holy See, Boston and London. In 2000, he opened Irelands Consulate General in Shanghai and in 2005 became Irelands first resident ambassador in Sofia. He is currently Deputy Director General of the EU Division of the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs.

iNTERViEW oN THE occaSioN oF 20 yEaRS DiPloMaTic RElaTioNS ...

94 5/2010

MacHiaVElli iN BRUSSElS: a GUiDEBooK To THE laByRiNTH oF EU loBByiNG

Preface to the book of the Dutch professor Dr. Rinus van Schendelen Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU, a joint publication of the Diplomatic Institute, the Royal Netherlands Embassy to Bulgaria and the National Association of Municipal Clerks,

Machiavelli in Brussels:A guidebook to the labyrinth of EU lobbying

Ambassador Zdravko Popov, Ph.D. in recent years, the terms lobby, lobbying, lobby groups and lobby interests invaded

rapidly the Bulgarian public speech. at the same time, however, it became obvious that they were used quite haphazardly and, more often than not, adversely. it was impressed that these words meant something deceitful and illegitimate, having to do with clientelism, corruption prac-tices or dishonest backdoor arrangements that resulted only in private (either personal or col-lective) favouritism, to the detriment of the public good. Because of this usage, most of us seem to have created a thwarted image of the actual processes of lobbying in the civilised world and of the need and benefit of lobbying activities and professional lobbyists.

The book of the Dutch author Dr. Rinus van Schendelen, Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU, appeared on the Bulgarian market as an original response to the need of understanding the true nature of lobbyism, as it is practiced on the European level. Such a book is particularly helpful to the new Member States, which try to incorporate and implement the ways and tools of the good practices of influence at the European institutions in order to defend their interests. The book has already attracted a vast audience in the czech Republic (2004) and in Poland (2005). The Bulgarian reader enjoys the advantage that the Bulgarian translation was done from the third, fully revised and updated edition entitled More Machiavelli in Brussels (2010) which takes into account the reform of the European institutions following the entry into force of the lisbon Treaty.

Dr. van Schendelen leads us methodically and patiently into the positive connotation of intelligent lobbying practices, and makes an entertaining presentation of the ways in which lobbying can influence the decision-making process of EUs institutions. i shall try to highlight those passages of the book, which, in my view, are most pertinent to the rising debate in fa-vour or against lobbying in Bulgaria.

There is no doubt that lobbying grows and thrives in developed democratic and market societies where the boundary between public and private areas is comparatively clear, and where the relationship and mutual influence between these areas are essential for the stability and prosperity of the said societies. There is a periodic renewal of relations between govern-ments, parliaments, and regional and local authorities, on the one hand, and civil societies and organisations, the businesses, the different professions, consumer groups and many other private subjects, on the other hand. This is a changing and complex environment of expressed and defended interests and ideas. Where this picture is pluralistic and complex on a national level, it is even more complex and versatile on the EU level, for the Union is composed of 27 Member States, each of which with its national interests, specific traditions, economies, attitudes, organisations, identities, etc. an enormous sea of political, economic and cultural diversity. These states, and the societies they represent, must make common decisions, formu-late common policies, develop common rules, unite for common action, and at the same time

95DiPloMacy 5/2010

MacHiaVElli iN BRUSSElS: a GUiDEBooK To THE laByRiNTH oF EU loBByiNG

defend and safeguard their national interests and national characteristics. This self-protecting and competing diversity of interests, ideas and values in the European

Union brings about management dilemmas and decision-making problems. in this reality and in such management circumstances, lobbying finds its natural place and meaning in situations that generate the need for information, negotiations, pressure, mediation, campaigns, and part-nership. Van Schendelen determines the term lobbying as a synonym of actions intended to bring a desired outcome or influence.

Why Machiavelli? Why choose Niccol Machiavelli, counsellor to lorenzo de' Medici, ruler of 16th-century Florence, as the image of the contemporary lobbyist? The reason is that the au-thor believes that he personifies best the main features of lobbying, namely the ambition to win the game; the studious preparation for the playing field before embarking on it; and the prudent action throughout the game. although present-day lobbyists may also frequently appear as other personalities, such as e.g. Ren Descartes or Xun Zi, the image of Machiavelli remains archetypical if we wish to rationalise the essential nature of lobbying.

lobbying is an art and a game; it is diplomacy. it is a complex and delicate job that requires training, knowledge, skills, culture, and, last but not least, talent. Having appeared and as-serted itself in the United States, passing through the United Kingdom, and finally reaching continental Europe and spreading there successfully, lobbying today, according to Rinus van Schendelen, is an inseparable part of public affairs (PA) management. it could even be said that basically, it would be difficult to see any difference whatsoever between a lobbying group and a group that carries out or manages public activities, especially regarding the process of decision-making. in this respect, Brussels is all too rich in empirical examples, regardless of whether we speak of party policy, legal matters, agriculture, environment, telecommunications, consumer rights, or anything else. lobbying is an ingrained element of the life and mandate of the European Parliament, the commission, all EU institutions, and the representations of the EU Member States. There is no place in Brussels where lobbying is not carried out. There are more than 2400 offices of lobby groups in Brussels, or the premier league of players, as the author calls them.

The mutual penetration of public affairs management and lobbying creates a sustainable network of interaction between governments, academic circles, businesses, and civic organisa-tions. The closer this co-operation, the better the ultimate administrative decisions and, conse-quently, the public interest is better observed.

The book of Dr. van Schendelen is an original textbook of professional lobbying. in it, the reader will find instructions on nearly all elements of a lobbyists work. it summarises the ex-perience of a large number of players in the field of public affairs management. The book is an apology of professionalism and expertise, and a warning against amateurism and incom-petence in the domain of public affairs management and lobbying. it is the authors pertinent and ironic opinion that the professional lobbyist is led by conscious and targeted behaviour, while the amateur behaves like a lobby tourist, and returns home with only souvenirs from Brussels.

Machiavelli in Brussels could also be regarded as a collection of the various national styles of lobbying the EU those of the old Member States and of the new Member States. it is important to understand that no country can obtain the results it wants from the EUs decision-making process if it is only focused on its internal problems and traumas, if it does nothing but complain, or if it relies on good luck alone. it needs openness, communication, and adapting to European practices, as well as a lot of patient and assiduous work, to meet the objectives and solve the problems. as the author says, lobbying is the one of the main factors, which keeps the

96 5/2010

system open, free, and competitive. in a democracy, lobby groups are an extremely important part of the open society (Karl Popper). in totalitarian systems and dictatorial regimes, lobbying activities are useless, and are even dangerous for the regime.

Naturally, it would be too nave to believe that lobbying has no negative impact. Just like any other human activity, it is not insured against temptation or sin. one should always presume that there are individuals or groups who would cross the borderline of that which is allowed and honourable, and who will consequently be liable to sanctions. There are an ample number of examples to bear this out on the European level. However, is it worth to throw the baby out with the bath water? as van Schendelen would add, should we leave it to the bureaucrats and officials to decide at their desire what decision to make or not to make; should we leave it to them to interpret the regulations and directives; should we allow them be deaf or blind to the voices and opinions of others? if we weigh wisely the positive and negative impacts of lobbying, we shall see that the positive ones get the upper hand in a convincing and obvious way. at the end, there is a sufficiently strong correction mechanism and self-regulation in the domain of lobbying practices (e.g. register of lobbyists, licensing, a code of conduct, the role of reputation, etc.). it is well known that the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.

The book of Dr. Rinus van Schendelen Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU is a highly knowledgeable attempt to answer the fundamental questions of any major public debate on lobbying, e.g. Why lobby? lobbying what? lobbying with whom? How to lobby? lobbying where? lobbying when? Who should lobby? This is why i recommend this book to everyone who is taking a keen interest in these matters, hoping that it will bring them true intellectual gratification.

Prague Sofia June-July 2010

Dr Zdravko Popov is a professor at Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski since 1997. He was a foreign policy adviser to the President of the Republic of Bulgaria (1990-1992). Member of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs (1990-1991). From 1996 to 2002 was chairman of UNICEF - Bulgaria. Member of the Council of European and Euro-Atlantic integration to the President of the Republic of Bulgaria (2002-2006). From 2002 to 2003 Dr Popov was an adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. During the period 2003 - 2006 he was Director of the Bulgarian Diplomatic Institute to the MFA. From 2006 to 2010 he was Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Bulgaria to the Czech Republic.

MacHiaVElli iN BRUSSElS: a GUiDEBooK To THE laByRiNTH oF EU loBByiNG

97DiPloMacy 5/2010

Danube Strategy Johannes Eigner, Ambassador

The last rounds of EU Enlargement have highlighted the importance of the Danube River Basin as a central region for the future development of Europe.

Thats why austria, together with Romania, took the initiative to put efforts for more cooperation and coordination in this region at a European level. as a result of this the European council has formally asked the European commission to present an EU-Strategy for the Danube Region by the end of 2010, stating in its conclusions of 19 June 2009: Sustainable development should also be pursued through an integrated approach to the specific challenges facing particular regions

The European commission and the Member states started working. National contact points were nominated. For austria it was important to have all partners of the Danube cooperation Process one of those previous attempts to foster regional cooperation - on board. it was crucial to involve the non EU-members already at an early stage this aspect is also the most salient difference to the Baltic Sea Strategy which otherwise largely served as a useful model.

Macro-regional strategy The EUSDR is - following the Baltic Sea Strategy - the second macro-regional strategy.

These strategies follow a completely new concept. They comprise an area covering a number of administrative regions, but with sufficient issues in common to justify a single strategic approach. The macro-regional strategies are multi-sectoral (navigability, environment, economy etc.), they are integrated (cooperation between institutions the Ec, EU-MS, non EU-MS) and they have a long-term perspective. They are also multi-level (they include national, regional and local levels), consensus-based and decentralised.

We see great potential of macro-regional strategies for contributing to the territorial cohesion of the EU and for achieving EU objectives such as the ones expressed in the lisbon agenda and in the commissions communication Europe 2020.

it is of utmost importance that the cooperation between current EU members and potential future member countries in South East Europe will be enhanced and strengthened: Members of the EUSDR consist of eight EU-member states (Germany, austria, Hungary, czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania und Bulgaria) as well as six non-EU-member states (croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Moldova and Ukraine).

We consider the EU-Strategy for the Danube Region as a multi-annual ongoing process. The Danube-Strategy is one of the priorities of the austrian foreign policy. During the last couple of months huge efforts were made to elaborate a common strategy. austrias second non-paper therefore indicated areas (for instance Danube navigation, water management, biodiversity and environmental protection as well as cooperation in education and culture for sustainability and competitiveness