Bucharest Forum 2018 When East Meets West: Collision, Collusion or Cooperation?
8-10 October, 2018 

Bucharest Forum is an annual high-level event organized by the Aspen Institute Romania and the Bucharest office of the German Marshall Fund of the US. Since its inception in 2012, the mission of the Bucharest Forum is to create a regional platform for forward thinking on economic and security policies and for promoting political dialogue between governments and the civil society. 

The seventh edition of the Bucharest Forum takes place between 8 – 10 October, 2018, at critical times for the region and Europe. 

The current international context is in flux, as on both shores of the Atlantic national politics is driven by new agendas and discourses, imprinting a consequent dynamics to international relations, and affecting economic trends at national, regional and international levels. Brought to the fore by grievances of a plurality of citizens who feel left out of mainstream politics and economy, the new political trend and its economic philosophy are generating antagonistic approaches and actions of various actors, leading to numerous clashes of interest, intention and outcomes. Indeed, the main feature of the current context is the numerous clashes being either in incubation phase or out in the open. 

By bringing together leading politicians, thinkers, journalists, and business representatives, Bucharest Forum offers a platform for the various actors to meet and discuss their interests, approaches and goals, analyze potential and existing clashes, their implications and results, and look for ways to maximize the potential benefits of diverging views and mitigate the consequent negative impact.

Mircea Geoana, President, Aspen Institute Romania opened the first day of Bucharest Forum 2018. Franco Frattini, President, Italian Society for International Organizations and Special Representative of the OSCE, Chairperson-in-Office for the Transdniestrian Settlement Process, intervened after the key note address of Viorica Dancila, Prime Minister, Government of Romania.

The panel was centered on Cores and Peripheries in Europe: Is There a Future for the European Project?. The European project faces internal and external pressures and is in need to be adapted to both unexpected and predicted changes, demands and developmental trends. One of the most visible, if not the most important, rift within the Union is between core and periphery, both geographically, strategically and economically. Will this rift, together with the other forces, put an end to the project? Or can it be channeled towards increased coherence and further development?
The panel discussion was moderated by Andrew Wrobel, Head of Editorial, Emerging Europe
High Level Speakers: Baroness Denise Kingsmill CBE, Member of the House of Lords, Chair, Aspen Initiative UK , Franco Frattini, President, Italian Society for International Organizations and Special Representative of the OSCE, Chairperson-in-Office for the Transdniestrian Settlement Process , Jean-François Copé, Former Minister of the Budget, Mayor of Meaux, Lawyer at the Paris Bar.



"It would be a mistake if the European Union were to "punish" the United Kingdom for its intention of leaving the community bloc", Franco Frattini stated in the discussion about the future of the European project within the Bucharest Forum conference. At the same time, a "no deal" situation - the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union without an agreement following the negotiations with Brussels - would not be beneficial for the United Kingdom, Frattini pointed out, making an appeal in this context to "more leadership" on behalf of the EU. Frattini also made an appeal that Europe should take advantage of Brexit in order to become a real protagonist on the world stage, given that the presence of the United Kingdom proved to be an obstacle in certain fields, mentioning in this sense the security and common defence policy. An agreement is highly desirable through which the European Union can keep a close relationship with the United Kingdom and in equal measure it would be good for the latter not to sever its ties with the community block, Franco Frattini recommended.



More info on the Forum agenda

Follow the event : @BucharestForum

Who made Bulgaria and Romania require monitoring report and why they joined the EU in 2007?

Former Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs and Deputy Chairman Franco Frattini raised the curtain for the first time specifically for Life Econimist

The year is 2006. Bulgaria and Romania are struggling for EU membership after the completion of difficult negotiations for membership continued years. The headquarter of the European Commission Berlamont arrive alarming reports and secret files which only increases the resistance two Balkan countries to become full members of the Community on 1 January 2007. On one side of our supporters are France, Italy, Spain and Austria, but other forces are such as Germany, Holland, Belgium and the United Kingdom. For the past Bulgaria and Romania did not yet ready for membership in the EU and vulnerable open wound on the territory of a prosperous and peaceful then the EU. These are "countries where corruption prevails at the highest level, the laws do not correspond to European principles, and especially there is no guarantee for corrective - locally responsible judicial system," the report said.

Key figure tossing the hot potato in Brussels is the Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs Franco Frattini. It is he figured out how to open the door through which to pass to join the European family.

FF "I came up with monitoring options (control mechanism and cooperation) as a compromise. Bulgaria and Romania were completed accession negotiations but the EU hesitation whether to accept you in 2007 year or to postpone by one year to reach a decision for the Union's enlargement. On my table in Brussels came reports by Commission experts, who recommended the postponement of the membership and submitted a strong card in the hands of countries that were against you. And it's not what any country! Resistance was particularly large in relation to Romania, but Bucharest went hand in hand with Sofia and this was attracted down and you. Romania was experiencing serious scandals with top level corruption cases and scandals shaking Prime Minister Adrian Nastaze. Balgariya dozatamni picture and so widespread petty corruption.

On the other hand when you had serious efforts, charged with enthusiasm and will to become a member, were completed tough negotiations and I did not think you need to scalding.

I have no doubt that if you postpone a year you would not be ready in 2007 and in 2008 and today we would have you look into the optics of the Caucasus countries and Ukraine. I decided to assume greater political responsibility, overcoming obstacles and power of your opponents suggested an acceptable compromise - suggested establishing a mechanism for periodic inspection, to appease the spirits especially in the Netherlands and Belgium and the considerable community in Germany. If this had not happened, I think that the refusal would return like a boomerang in your country.

See what happens to the infinite Schengen area.

To overcome the Dutch veto accession to the Schengen agreement while I was commissioner, my compromise proposal was to speed up Schengen infromation system (SIS) and hearken Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Belkenende. Alas subsequently Schengen process remains incomplete and postponed »

Seven years later, this control mechanism remains in force ... ..

FF »Because judicial reform has not been completed. We saw various reforms passed in parliament but unimplemented in action. But this is not just a problem of your two countries. »

To successful reform, which are the most important elements?

No nominations from parliament. When magistrates are nominated by parliament problem. The same applies to the management of the magistracy. Nezaviisima Master first, second - the appointment of judges in individual courts should be done in a transparent manner to avoid political influence and third: In the Prosecutor's Office of the award should always be random, automatically, not by choice share and prosecutor. Must be invested in formate magistrates. This made Croatia, this makes Serbia. Investing in Justice investitral rule of law. This will give guarantees and foreign partners when you decide to invest in one country or another. Croatia entered without a monitoring mechanism for investing in legal reform and in the formation of the security apparatus and the police.

Italy, which holds the rotating EU predsedyatel participates in the South An incentive and is among the supporters of realization, although Brussels believes the project agreement nsaotvetstvashto European legislation. Should I continue with South Stream.

FF "biggest mistake of Europe was to tell us or Ukraine or Russia and Ukraine when it was a candidate for EU membership. Worse is facing such a dilemma countries are bound unique cultural and economic links to Russia. Bulgaria must play the role of a bridge between Europe and Russia, not to enter into commercial wars. In the interest of Europe to calm tensions around Ukraine and to work on the strategic partnership with Moscow.

South Stream is needed because the EU is required for some of the countries in the Union and especially for South Eastern Europe. In Italy we have supplies from Azerbaijan, Kuwait or Africa that do not pass through Ukraine and can rely on alternatives. But you? - No, it will rely on gas, which will bring in ships overseas, which will cost you more.

READ THE INTERVIEW IN CYRILLIC

LIFE - The Economist in cyrillic