Bill that was passed by the house this weekend is about to be taken up by the senate. Newsmakers, sunday 10 00 a. M. 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. European shipments of scholars discussed the role of diplomacy and strengthening European Security and they talk about conflict in of the ukraine. This is just over anouncil evens just over an hour. Good morning and welcome. Thank you all for joining us. I am the president and ceo of the Atlantic Council. Its my way pleasure to welcome youy pleasure to welcome today on the discussion of diplomacy in the future of European Security. I would like to extend a special welcome to our esteemed speakers, first and foremost, the secretary general for security and cooperation in europe. The secretary general is joined by a member of the panel of eminent persons on european is a common project professor. He also served as president of the Chicago Council on global affairs, our Partner Organization for todays event. I would also like to welcome the distinguished guest we have today. Forgive me if i dont have all of you in my notes. This discussion comes at a time of uncertainty in european history to say the very least. More than a quartercentury after the fall of the berlin wall, the strategic questions of political divergence is emerged. Looking back, sometimes we forget the huge importance of the csc in getting us through the cold war and out the other side in as good a shape as we are in. Turning back to europe and ukraine, instability persists. As of february, the minsk ceasefire has failed to halt the conflict that has killed more than 9000 people. It is unclear whether europe will be able to deliver refugee rights. Among the challenges are also threats to europes core, the mounting forces of disintegration across europes centrifugal forces, risk unraveling the peace and stability achieved through years of transatlantic leadership for security. Realizing these new dangers, the council has ramped up its own initiative, because we think the reminder is necessary now and in washington, and across the , of the imprints of the transatlantic relationship to the security of a global future. Leaders have become increasingly reluctant to Work Together in restoring a vision for europe or a transatlantic vision. A chief example is the united kingdoms june 23 vote to stay in or leave the European Union. We released last week a letter signed by former secretaries of defense, secretaries of state, and National Security advisers making the arguments of in favor of remaining in from a geopolitical and security standpoint. A vote to leave could inspire a cascade of other eu referendums, as nearly half of voters in eight other eu countries have said they want their own brexit like vote. Since the groups founding, in december, 2014, by the osce responseirmanship in to russias annexation in crimea earlier that year, the panel has held a series of frank and intense discussions on European Security. Copies of the panels final report, and i urge you to read it, back to diplomacy, can be in our law the. Please pick it up on your way out. I also encourage you to join the conversation we are starting here today and continuing on twitter. Much to discuss, and so let me go ahead and turn things over to the professor, a friend i have respected for many, many years, currently a professor at warsaw university, the minister of Foreign Affairs in poland. He is a great friend of the council, and it is a pleasure to have him back with us today. I leave it to you to give us a more comprehensive introduction. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your kind words. I am going to make a very brief introduction to our debate today. We were established with a mandate to respond to the question of how european asurity can be rediscovered a common project. Wisdom, popular among intellectuals and National Security experts, is that there a need to strengthen existing aim to make with an them more effective. The other school of thinking is that one should convene a Congress Like the historical or helsinki. Tnam and elaborate a kind of European Security treaty which should contain new principles, and fundamentally a new code of conduct. In my view, however, there is no deficit in europe of political institutions. They bind the states and their mutual relationship. The problem in europe, and its not for a lack of documents, but for a desiccant at deficit of mutual trust and confidence. I would like to say that our report reflects three different narratives. Represented by the western states. The other by russia. The third one by the countries in between who are represented by two participants on the panel ukraine and georgia. I would like to say that the institutions should follow the problems. Therefore, the panel of eminent persons in this work on the final report has been focused on the origin and depth of the crisis in European Security. There is no shortage of contact, including higher level meetings. There is an urgent meeting to find a way to rebuild trust and confidence. The proposed recommendations, although modest, i would like to say the proposed recommendations, although they are modest in fact are adequate for the challenges. As the common project should be the search for European Security as a common project should be less oriented to the rhetoricck kurt than to technicalities at the core of matters. Fact,oblems, in originated within the states and not between them. Not between the west and russia, but within the west and within russia. What has to be done . In general, the terms one has to recommend to deescalate and demilitarized security policy. The priorities or strategies for corporation and the joint cooperation and a joint solution under the orc offices should conclude in 2016 following immediate steps and measures. First, prevention of the direct military confrontation between the west and russia. One should be focused especially on the question how to prevent unintentional military incidents. Second, development of political, economic, and military conditions were a for a durable and just peaceful settlement of the crisis around ukraine as well as other regions. I would like to say that the interim report of the group was directly focused on the solution of the crisis in and around ukraine. Fourth, excuse me, third, the mission in ukraine, to ukraine, and establishing to monitor and establishing a mechanism to implement the minsk agreement. And forth, operating a frame for the lasting Political Sentiment of the ukraine crisis within the new European Security order, which has to be based on the following elements. The core and fundamental political component of a new european order has repulsed the reviewedas to be both by the National Territories of states and the industries of internal political order. Second, confirmation of that principles. I have in mind and sovereigns of states who will use force, nonuse of force nonintervention in internal , affairs, respect for human rights, equal rights, and demilitarization of peoples, selfdetermination of peoples. Cooperation of states, and in good faith, obligations under international law. The fifth element which has to be taken in this broader context is an operation of in operative and adequate risks, military and nonmilitary measures. Reflection of some old ideas of of some old zones of interest, or privilege, interest for great powers, or are irreconcilable with the principle of sovereign and equal rights over the states, of the states who belong to the osc. Next element is revitalization and activation of the arms control process. And on new act, new sense of confidence and security measures under the osc offices. Adjustment of the existing institutions and origins to the new tasks and challenges. I would like to say that not everything has to be reinvented, but many things will be rediscovered. Some of these mechanisms could be upgraded. In short, it seems to me that the time is right to initiate the process of negotiation with an aim to find a Common Security denominator for the west and russia in the form of a new security arrangement. Such a negotiated compromise has to reconcile both a different threat perceptions and National Security interests. It has to be done in a world which is more interconnected, more contested at the moment, and more complex than in the past years, which we know as cold war period. Therefore, the new european and Global Security system has to be more integrated, and as i said, interconnected. Interdependent. Since europe and the world are more fragmented and contested, there is a need to take under consideration the existing political needs and demonstrate both flexibility and sense of in thers and reflected way they are the final effort under the title. Thank you very much for your attention. [applause] ivo daalder thank you very much for your introduction, and adam for the overview of the report. Said, the copies are outside the door. We will look forward at the work we have been doing. Very much appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion here at the Atlantic Council today. Let me start with the secretarygeneral. And a reflection on i think something that might be underappreciated, which is the role of one International Organization in ukraine, is playing today. The osc role has been very critical since the start of the conflict and continues to be critical. If you can just reflect on that role, where that might evolve over the future and what the osc could be doing that is bringing all of us together. Lamberto zannier one of the surprising things is the vote in this. In fact, at the beginning of the crisis, the European Union, we have been dealing with ukraine. We keep dealing also with the crisis of both. They recovered at some point. Their role was somehow onesided. They did not find the ground for them to engage in what became an extremely polarized crisis with the media and the narratives was very different. And where there was a need for inclusive approach for them to play their role. And that is what the osc was able to provide. The table around which, how can i say, controversial manner this issue was discussed. But in the end, there was an agreement, a needed for a goal needed for international goals. A political process, and to try to stabilize the situation, but to try to unify the narrative on the conflict. So, that mandate was mainly a mandate of monitoring and reporting back and forth, trying to devolve this kind of expansion of different narratives that could have also broke to an expansion of the conflict. The result was that we started deploying, there was a story brought back by the monitors and also the differences within the osc communities. We have monitors come from here, monitors come from various European Countries, and from russia. They are showing multinational teams. So, they tell us the story together the way they see things, etc. So, we forced everybody to look at things from the same perspectives. And i think that was a good contribution that the International Community provided , feet on the ground, but also in lowering the amount around this conflict. The political process is normandy, you may be following the difficulties and the progress. On the ground, the mandated mission which is mainly what we are monitoring, it is unarmed observers we have. It is a mission that has expanded, a thousand people, 700 monitors and support staff. Most of which is now deployed in the eastern regions. It is a mandate that tests the factors that have been expanded to cover other functions. Basically, supporting the value of implementation, monitoring areas where we have military equipment being moved to. Reporting back that some of the subsequent dates it was new the line of combat. So, it was a warning in relation to a possible violation of the ceasefire. This is also to show that at times when we see division or a conflict back in europe where we hoped we would not be after the end of the cold war, we would open a new phase of cooperation and peaceful interaction. We see that border is not being sustainable as we were expecting. We are seeing conflicts. In the postcold war cities from moldova to georgia, ukraine is a larger expression of that kind of problematic. Aroundl need a table, which we have to discuss differences, understand problems. And promote cooperation, which is still lacking. And update the tools. Some of these tools go back to the cold war days. They need to be adapted, modernized, and adjusted to address more challenging nature of the conflict today. So, that is the agenda we have in the osc, and is a work in progress. Ivo daalder so, our report, as professor rotfeld described, we had two reports, one that looked at ukraine, and the role of the osc. One that made recommendations to improve it. How to even do a better job, because i think, as as we concluded, the osc was critical and remains a critical part of this. The second part of our report said that we need to have a diplomatic strategy that is both immediate and longerterm based on the implementation of minsk. We said nothing can happen until then fundamental part of the conflict is resolved. Ering, talk a little bit about what we are hearing in the longerterm, we should be looking at that. Barbara haering it seems to release the report. In 2015, the situation has become more serious, and maybe minsk has not been implemented, conflicts that have been frozen, popping up again. The risk of these incidents has to radically increased. Therefore, our focus today is really to avoid an escalation of the situation caused by unintended accidents, incidents. This needs a call for a solid , stable military cooperation. It needs a joint europe principal that we have all agreed. And it needs more implication of the United States. The United States has to be at the table. This crisis over the ukraine goes beyond ukraine, beyond europe, and into the geopolitical threat to many countries. That is the immediate focus we have to take. And the long run, we have to find a strategy how to define the Security Status of countries that do not belong to an alliance. The report calls them the countries in between. There is certainly a strategy needs that goes country by country. At issue is a particular situation. This is not enough. That is why our report asks for a comprehensive Diplomatic Initiative to rest these issues in the interest of the principles we have all agreed in the final act and in the paris charter. We should stick to it. This framework is solid. And it does not have to be rewritten. It just has to be followed. Ivo lets take the conversation to both parts of what you just talked about. Jeanmarie, you know where we are. We concluded and the one thing we agreed, 15 Panel Members including our russian colleagues, that the situation is dangerous. We need to focus on that situation in order to avoid it becoming more dangerous and more hot wars occurring. There is already one in ukraine. Of course. But more hot wars occurring. On what we can do, and perhaps what the situation really demands at this point. Jeanmarie this report is a call to diplomatic action. There is a great complacency today. When we look at the situation today, and the situation in the cold war, no one should regret the cold war. Which kept half of europe with limited sovereignty with a tax on human rights. At the same time, one should recognize that todays situation may be more dangerous than the cold war. It is more dangerous because there is no agreed status quo. Everything is up for grabs. Which, in some ways, we should be happy with. If it means that the people take charge. If it means that incidents can escalate because there is no clarity on the situation of each country, then that becomes very dangerous. That is why we believe in the panel that it is important to take action, both in the immediate shortterm, the tactical situations, where armed forces from russia and nato countries can become embroiled. We saw it when a russian fighter was shot over a sliver of turkish territory. We have been, so to speak, lucky so far, that none of those incidents have really escalated. But you cannot have a sound security based on luck. And so, we do call for much more engagement, military to military, to look up how to manage those incidents. How to manage, in case of escalation. If we are not lucky, what happens . There needs to be procedures in place, so that events do not take control. That is how wars start. And we believe that maybe there is not enough thought given to that today. And then, there is the broader picture. The fact that, yes, during the cold war, as barbara was saying, you have neutral countries like switzerland and a different status for finland. But a clear status. You had nato members. You had pact memebers. Ners. Bers. And that was the end of the cold war. You had an arms control that extended to europe with the conference in europe. The vienna document. And on the Nuclear Front the intermittent Nuclear Force agreement. So, you had a framework for predictability and transparency that limited the risks of unexpected escalation. And we see those frameworks, frankly, at risk today. And so, there has to be hard work to engage with russia on those issues. And, of course, we hear and know that, unfortunately, the reality is in many cases you engage and you do not get the response. In our view, that is not a reason not to engage. Lets make it clear to our Public Opinion the structures that have kept the stability and the peace in europe. And there, i think, one has to be aware. I mean, i am a frenchman. I can see the fragility of Public Opinion in europe. You have a combination of some extreme left and extreme right that are quite happy if the United States, in a way, disengages. The majority of europe