bet · GS01UU10 · 2005-04-26 00:00:00 — Dessa lyfts ju å andra sidanav, om man gör dem via EU, från utgifter som redan finns fast på nationellabudgetar. Men det långsiktigt minskande är framför allt rimligtvisjordbrukspolitiken. Även om det tar tid - , tycker många avoss - kommer den likväl naturligtvis att minska. Det andra är regionalstödeni den västliga delen, de regioner som växer ur EU. Därför är det mycketanmärkningsvärt att kommissionen lägger fram ett sådant här budgetförslagutan att ta konventets förslag om hur EU ska se ut med iberäkningen.När det sedan gäller utrikespolitiken tror jag att EU har en viktigroll när det gäller relationerna till våra närområden, både österut ochsöderut. Där tror jag kanske inte att vi enskilda medlemsländer kommeratt vara den primära aktören utan just EU. Det gäller såväl Medelhavspolitikensom , och och kanske även . Där ärdet å andra sidan mycket viktigare att vi har en öppen handel, att viinte är så protektionistiska. Det är framför allt på handelssidan somde viktigaste åtgärderna ska göras. De finansiella transaktionerna finnsdär redan, men det är framför allt handeln som är det centrala för attde ska kunna utvecklas.Jag tror att man ska se det här kommissionsdokumentet för vad det är:Prodikommissionens sista förslag. Jag tror att det finns anledning attkomma tillbaka - med en ny kommission om , eller vaddet nu är - och få en mer genomarbetad budget där man förhoppningsvisockså tar hänsyn till konventets förslag, vilket då kanske åtminstoneär taget även om det ännu inte har folkomröstats i varjemedlemsland.Statssekreterare : Det sista som togupp tycker jag är ganska intressant och värt att beröra: Vad betyderdet att det är en avgående kommission som har lagt fram det härbudgetförslaget? Jag kan i många stycken dela den analys som , kanske med ett undantag. Jag menar nog ändå - det sade jag kanskeinnan hade haft möjlighet att komma - att de härutgiftsförändringarna relativt väl speglar det konventsförslag som nuligger på bordet.Vad innebär det nya fördragsförslaget? Jo, det är ökade europeiskasatsningar på rätts- och inrikesområdet. Där har vi plus . Det ärmer gemensam utrikespolitik, plus . Sedan är det en hel del mertillväxt och annat, plus . Det stora problemet - som jag sadetidigare luras de här procentsiffrorna lite - med den här budgeten är jude plus 18 respektive plus på strukturfonderna. Det är därpengarna, de överdrivna utgifterna, ligger. Det är där det stora bekymretligger.Det intressanta är dock: Kommer en ny kommission att på något sätt kommamed ett nytt förslag? Ja, det är det ju ingen som vet. Vi vet inte enshur den nya kommissionen kommer att se ut, vare sig vem som blir ordförandeeller vilka kommissionärer som kommer att ingå. Men det är klart att viinte skulle ha någonting emot att vi fick ett något mer realistisktbudgetförslag från en ny kommission.Vi har i det här läget avstått från att begära, som en del länder hargjort, att man ska skrota det förslag som kommissionen har lagt framoch börja om från början. Vi menar att även om vi tycker ganska illa omdet så kanske man kan arbeta med det som utgångspunkt men försökaförändra det radikalt.Jag vill dock inte på något sätt utesluta att vi får en utveckling därden nya kommissionen väljer - kanske på eget initiativ och efter att halyssnat på ett antal länder, bland annat - att komma med någotmer realistiska siffror. Det skulle i så fall innebära att det jag angavtidigare, nämligen att vi förmodligen inte kan slutförhandla detta förränvåren 2006, säkert blir en realitet, men det tycker jag nog att vi kanleva med. Det viktiga är som sagt att slutresultatet blir det rätta.Som vi ser det måste vi nu ändå utgå från att vi ska hugga tänderna ikommissionens detaljerade förslag som kommer och börja förhandlastenhårt , innan den nya kommissionen träder i kraft. Skulledet komma nya och bättre underlag från kommissionen - utmärkt, då klararvi väl det. Då har vi något nytt att jobba med.Jag har tidigare också fått frågan: Vad händer om man inte kommer överensom en sådan här förhandling? Det är en ganska intressant fråga. Det ärju faktiskt så att en flerårsbudget i princip bygger på enhällighet,åtminstone enligt det nuvarande fördraget. Alla medlemsländer måstesäga ja för att vi ska få en ny flerårsbudget. Skulle vi teoretisktsäga att det inte blir någon överenskommelse blir det ingen flerårsbudget.Då kommer man i stället att jobba med årsbudgetar som är utformade påett sådant sätt att man tar, i det aktuella fallet, budget,gör vissa uppräkningar och så blir det budget. Det blir resultatetom man inte kommer överens.Nu tror jag att de flesta, kanske till och med alla, vill att man nåren överenskommelse om en sådan viktig fråga som flerårsbudgeten. Mendet kan vara bra att veta inför den fortsatta diskussionen att skulleman inte komma överens blir det inte så att unionen stannar, utan dåtillämpar man ett system som i viss mån påminner om det som exempelvisden amerikanska administrationen har när man inte kommer överens ombudget mellan administration och kongress. Där kallar man det förcontinuing resolution, tror jag. Det är alltså ungefär samma mekanism somskulle användas i EU om man skulle hamna i en sådan situation.Berndt (): Jag kan passa på att be om ett klarläggande. Tyvärrvar jag också lite sen. Vad betyder de här påslagen ihop med de andrakostnader som naturligtvis finns i det här procenttalet avBNI? Vad skulle det betyda om det var samma utgifter i absoluta tal somdet var 2007? Var skulle man då hamna procentuellt i den här diskussionenom ?Statssekreterare : Det jag har är en illustration av vaddet betyder för den svenska avgiften. Lägger man sig på skulle alltsåvår avgift ändå öka från nuvarande 24 till 30 miljarder, alltså fortfarandeen ganska rejäl ökning. Men den är då , att jämföra med denästan i ökning som vi har över tiden om man går på kommissionensmera ambitiösa förslag. Det är fortfarande en ökning.Det är också viktigt att komma ihåg att enprocentsförslaget, om det gårigenom, inte innebär några negativa konsekvenser för de nya medlemsländerna.Vi kan också med enprocentsmålet se till att de nya medlemsländernafullt ut får det regionalstöd och strukturfondsstöd som de räknar med.Lyckas vi i våra ansträngningar om kommer det helt och hållet attgå ut över de befintliga medlemsländerna och deras regionalstöd.Ordföranden (): Tack, ! Därmed ärklockan i princip elva, och då ber jag att få rikta dels ett tack tillLars som har redogjort för EU:s långtidsbudget och även svaratpå frågor, dels ett tack till utskottens ledamöter som har ställt ihögsta grad relevanta frågor kring det som har sagts här i dag.Därmed förklarar jag denna utfrågning från finansutskottets ochutrikesutskottets sida för avslutad.Bilaga 4Utrikesutskottets seminarium den 26 maj 2004The European Neighbourhood Policy and the State of Democracy and HumanRights in , and UkraineUrban (): Warmly welcome to this discussion on the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy and the relations in , and Moldova.I am Chairman of . In the Foreign AffairsCommittee in the Swedish Parliament we have actually spoken a lot aboutthe situation in these three countries when it comes to democracy, humanrights, minorities and their of future membership of theEuropean Union. We have spoken a lot about the Russian influence overthose countries. We have spoken at lot about the necessity for theEuropean Union to open the door and show interest in those countries.And we have closely followed the ideas in Union to developthe New Neighbourhood Policy.Let me be honest and frank, as always. I must say that we are a littlebit disappointed about this new neighbourhood policy, because from thebeginning the idea was that we should have an instrument for the newneighbouring countries. It was called , New NeighboursInitiative and so on. But in the end it came to a policy for allneighbouring countries. From the beginning it was actually meant to be forthe new neighbours, and the new neighbours are , andMoldova.That is the reason why we have this meeting today. We are very happy tosee so many participants in the audience. But we are even more happy tosee so many distinguished participants in our panel. I have met severalof them before, and I can assure everyone in the audience that we willhave a very fruitful morning and a very good, frank and open discussionabout the possibilities and opportunities in those countries.On behalf of , I would like to warmlywelcome all of you participants and all of you in the panel. Thank youvery much for coming.The meeting will be led by , who is Chair of our WorkingGroup on (fp): I would also like to welcome all of you to thisseminar and especially welcome our international guests, who havetravelled very far to be here with us today.We have a very distinguished panel of guests, representing politicians,academia and NGO's. I think the discussion will be very interesting.Thisseminar is arranged by together withthe and . We are veryhappy to arrange this seminar together with these two institutes.With the enlargement of Union - which is a great successfor continent for peace, stability, democracy and welfarespread out to ten more countries - we now have three new neighbours,, and . is of course not a neighbour yet,but with the next enlargement in 2007, when becomes a memberof Union, is also a next-door neighbour.This seminar will focus on these three countries. There are so manyaspects to highlight in these three countries, and we have chosen tohighlight the situation concerning democracy and human rights. We havefour speakers on this topic. Then we would also like to bring into thediscussion the policy of Union towards these three countriesand the form this policy should take.We hope to have a very fruitful discussion with you on the floor afterthe interventions by the different speakers. We have asked each speakernot to speak more than 15 minutes, so that we will have time fordiscussions afterwards. I ask all of you to please write down your questions,because we will save all questions for the discussion time at the end.Now I would like to introduce the first speaker, Mr. He has been an MP since 2002, and he entered parliamenton the list of the opposition of Our . He is Chairman of theParliamentary . He is also Head of thePeople's Movement of . Previously he has spent 25 years in theForeign Service, and in 1998-2000 he was Minister of Foreign Affairs ofUkraine.Please, Mr. Tarasyuk, we are very eager to hear what you have tosay.Boris Tarasyuk: Tack så mycket. First of all, I would like to expressmy gratitude to the organizers of this seminar. For me it is a greatpleasure and an honour to be among the speakers of this seminar. I amvery grateful to meet my good friend , whom I met not longago. During our meetings I came to the conclusion that has a veryprofound knowledge of what is going on in our region. It is a greatencouragement for us that in the Swedish Parliament there are peoplewho are deeply involved and know quite well what is going on in ourcountries.I am very happy to be here in the Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag.Historically the relationships between my country, , and Swedenwere quite , from the time of the to the time of the unionbetween and , when Hetman Masepa and King werethe in the fight against tsarist Moscovia. You know that in thebeginning of the 18th century they were together and they lost together.But this defeat has resulted in different consequences for both countries.For it did not lead to the loss of independence. For itled to the loss of independence for centuries.Currently our relationships are quite , and I am very happy to beone of those who have contributed to the development of these relationshipsduring numerous meetings here in and in . I remember quitewell that my last visit in my capacity as foreign minister was exactlyto . I enjoyed very much the company of my good friend AnnaLindh, who was the host during this visit.I will say something on the relationship between the enlargement of theEuropean Union, the new policy of Union, the New NeighbourhoodPolicy and the state of democracy in three countries, the new neighbours,, and Moldova.First of all, the enlargement of Union led to a new politicalreality. In we received new neighbours, members of the EuropeanUnion, who were traditionally our neighbours and with whom we enjoyedquite extensive bilateral relationships. It was quite natural for theEuropean Union to try to elaborate a new policy towards the new neighboursof the enlarged European Union. This approach has received differentnames and titles: and the New Neighbourhood Policy. I mustsay that in principle we could not but welcome these efforts from partsof the enlarged European Union to define its policy towards its newneighbours and first of all to its eastern neighbours.At the same time we have several concerns. For example, being a personwho was involved in the development of the relationship between theEuropean Union and since the very beginning, the beginning ofthe 90's, I cannot but be worried about some tendencies which appearedin defining the policy towards new neighbours.First of all, in the centre of Europe, being clearly a Europeancountry, is a country which is number one in terms of territory andnumber five in terms of population. Traditionally having historic tieswith all European nations and having close connections historically andculturally, was referred to by Commission as a newneighbour of Union together with all north African countries.For us the reference to together with countries who by thefundamental documents of Union by definition cannot beentitled, anytime in the future, to be members of Union,unlike , is not a very comfortable position.In addition I would like to say that we in do not feel comfortableafter some comments made by high-ranking officials of the EuropeanCommission, including its President, . , who said recentlythat by no chance ever in the future can be a member of theEuropean Union. I wonder whether Mr. has read the fundamentaldocuments of Union, like the , Article 49.To my mind this is a very wanton interpretation of fundamental documentsof Union. Certainly one cannot imagine that underthe current situation, which will be discussed later, can be a memberof Union, but at least the prospective membership of Ukrainein Union should be recognized by Union.The three new neighbouring countries, , and , areall of them derived from the same entity, the former Soviet Union. Buteach of those countries is different, with different starting-positions,starting-points. If and have declared their intentionto join Union, and Union is not respondingwith reciprocity, then never has expressed its interest injoining Union and is tending to join other unions, like aunion with Russia.The democracy situation in all three countries is absolutely different,with some very common features. As to , I would say that at theend of the 80's and the beginning of the 90's, the democracy, the respectfor human rights and freedom were on the rise in . Here I mustrefer to the very fact that it was at the end of the 80's and thebeginning of the 90's when the patriotic democratic forces gained thevictory and re-established the independence of , in the middleof 1991. This independence proclaimed by the Ukrainian Parliament wasconfirmed by the all-Ukrainian referendum on the 1st December 1991.More than 90 per cent of the Ukrainians expressed support for theindependence of . It was not just the proclamation of independence;this was the proclamation which was supported by the whole population.When still was a part of the former Soviet Union we had thefirst democratic elections, as a result of which , being a partof the Soviet Union, received a real democratically elected parliament.In 1991 we had a real democratic presidential election, as a result ofwhich was elected the first President of . Until1994, when there was a second presidential election as a result of whichLeonid Kuchma, the current President, gained the , we had a realdemocratic environment in which was developing. We had freedomof press. For the first time in the former Soviet Union space there wasa peaceful and democratic transfer of power from President toPresident , so it seemed to be the of democracy in Ukraine.But the situation started to change by the end of the 90's, and thereis a tendency to authoritarian rule in under President ,who's second term is about to expire by the end of this year. Thistendency started immediately after was re-elected, forthe second time, President of . Since that time he started theattack against the constitution, initiating the so called all-nationalreferendum on the changes in the constitution. These manipulations andthe attempts to tailor the constitution under the current regime arecontinuing.You remember that it was exactly in the year 2000 that the well knownopposition journalist disappeared and proved to be killedby the regime. The Cassette scandal, which testified to the involvementof high-ranking officials in who were involved in undemocraticactivity, was revealed. We started to have the internal crisis, and itcoincided with the second term of current President . In 2001 wehad the resignation of the most successful government in the history ofrenewed independence of , the government of was a proof of the attack against democracy.What do we have currently? We have a disbalance of powers, major branchesof powers in , in which the one branch led by the President andhis administration is over exceeding the other branches of powers, whichis unnormal in any democratic country, included. We have thelegislative power and the judicial power being ruled by another branch.The freedom of press is under threat currently in . The rightto elect and the right to be elected has been threatened during recentelections in 1998, 1999 and 2002, in different by-elections, and recentlyin the mayoral elections in the in western Ukrainelast month. This was a complete failure of democracy in Ukraine.We are witnessing the lack of rule of law in the country, in which thejudicial branch is dependent on the administration, the enforcement oflaw, the instrument of oppression of the opposition and attacks againstopposition, against the businesses loyal to the opposition, against anymass media which is trying to be objective. Certainly the forthcomingpresidential election on the 31st October is going to be the test ofthe democracy in Ukraine.Obviously democracy in is under threat. The future of Ukrainedepends on the results of this forthcoming presidential election, butthe picture is not as bad as you may imagine. The democratic forces inUkraine are rather strong. We have the largest faction in parliament,Our , 100 deputies out of 450. We have received the largestsupport during the parliamentary elections. We have the most popularpolitician as the leader of the Coalition, , havingthe best chances to win the election.What do we need? We need that the forthcoming presidential election isfree, transparent and democratic. In this regard we rely on the supportof all democratic countries, included, with your sentto this election in the 31st October. I think that democracy inUkraine will prevail. will come back to the road of democracyand will join other European nations as a democratic, prosperous country.Cecilia Wigström (fp): Thank you very much, Mr. I am surethat there will be at least some Members of our Parliament who willgladly come to to monitor the election.Boris Tarasyuk: Not enough.Cecilia Wigström (fp): While you are being here soliciting us maybethere will be even more MP's coming.Boris Tarasyuk: I have already put it in my calendar.Cecilia Wigström (fp): Now I will give the floor to Ms. is a Ph.D. and a political scientist from the . Between 1999 and 2001 she participated in a research projectentitled Regional Development Policy in Eastern and Central Europe,Actors and Institutions in , , and . She isfocusing mainly on . She teaches on transformation in centraland eastern Europe and industrial relations at the University.Kerstin Zimmer: First of all I want to thank you for inviting me andgiving me the opportunity to present my view on as a politicalscientist. I agree with many of the things Mr. Tarasyuk said, but Iwant to present them in a different way, from an academic point of view.As was already mentioned, I did some research in focusing onthe regional élite. I focused on the Donetsk regional élite. Tarasyukhas already rightly corrected me saying that I should properly use theword that is used in , which is the Donetsk Clan. It is reallyhard to distinguish between a regional élite and a clan in that case.As this regional group is becoming more and more important in theUkrainian political process, especially since 2002 when the former governorof that region became prime minister, I had to deal of course withUkraine in general. I will present to you some results of my researchand a more general view on Ukraine.First of all I want you to have a look at and Europe. This isa picture maybe all of you know. It is , who won theEuropean this year. This was celebrated very much in ,but the question is: Is that really the kind of integration Ukrainewants into Europe, or is there more to that? The person in charge ofEuropean integration in the Foreign Ministry was dismissed, while atthe same time this became an advisor to the Prime Minister ofUkraine. It is a paradox for me. I think the relationships to theEuropean Union of course will be defined in political terms.If we have a look at what the relationships with the EU and thepossibilities for further integration will depend on, I would say it isfirst of all the political development and the state of democracy withinUkraine. Tarasyuk has already mentioned, the political andconstitutional reforms that are under way in will be very important.It is also the presidential election, that will take place at the endof October this year, that will probably decide on what kind ofrelationship will have with Union.First of all, one has to ask the question: What kind of a state isUkraine? I want to give you some theoretical reflections and approacheswhich I will then fill with empirical examples in order to make it moreunderstandable. Here are some theoretical approaches.As you probably know, political scientists always have a kind of obsessionto classify political regimes. What type of regime do several politicalscientists see in the former Soviet bloc, and especially in ?Several people have come up with the title - these are hybrid regimes.That means they are neither democratic, nor authoritarian. Others haveapplied semi-authoritarian, semi-democratic - semi-whatever. The problemwith these categories is that they tell us very about what theseregimes really are. They only tell us what they are not. But they can'texplain the logic of action within these regimes.I want to present two other theoretical approaches that are more ableto explain what is really happening. There is one approach put forwardby two American political scientists, who have called the politicalregime in and also in as competitive authoritarianregimes. What does that mean? First of all, democratic rules matter.This is the first reason to say that one cannot really call these regimesauthoritarian, because both the opposition and the ruling élite referto democratic rules. They are maybe not applied constantly on a permanentbasis, but they are applied.Why is that? The two authors say that it is pluralism by default. It isnot really pluralism that is based on a strong civil society. But thereare two other reasons for pluralism to sustain in these countries. Firstof all, we have a divided élite. There is of course an opposition anda ruling group, but both groups are divided in themselves. That meansthat the opposition is divided and cannot really push through realdemocratic reforms, because they have clashes of interest within thegroup. The same is true for the ruling élite.