 Well, thank you, and my name is Fen Hampson. I'm moderator of this panel, which is entitled The Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of Eurasia. Our panel is focused on a vast region and also one that is difficult to define. We have a very distinguished group to help us define the region and explore some of its political, security, economic, and governance challenges. As moderator, I would like to raise a few questions in advance about governance, which is one of the principal themes of this conference. Next month, as many of you know, the Eurasian Economic Union, which is a political and economic pact that was signed in May 2014 between the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, will formally go into effect. Armenia signed an agreement to join the EEU in October. And later this December, Kyrgyzstan will also be signing a treaty for a roadmap to its own accession. The EEU will create a single economic market of some 171 million people that has a gross domestic product of $3 trillion. The idea for it was first pitched in 1994 by the president of Kazakhstan. It evolved to a, it has evolved to a Eurasian Economic Union over the past several decades. And in January 2012, the three founding countries committed themselves not only to the functioning of an effective common market, but also to establish the Eurasian Economic Commission, which is very much modeled on the European Commission. I think it's important to note that the Eurasian region has witnessed a number of other cooperative governance initiatives in both the economic and security sphere. In September 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed in a speech he delivered in Astana that China and Central Asia joined hands to build what he called a Silk Road Economic Belt in Eurasia to boost cooperation. And he offered a rather ambitious vision of the Silk Road that would boast eventually a 3 billion population and a market in size that is unparalleled in scale and potential. Yesterday, we heard President Park in her remarks to the forum describe her own Eurasian initiative to deepen Korea's linkages with the region. And she mentioned a number of cooperative projects that Korea is going to be pursuing with Russia and China, including the development of transportation and energy networks. And of course, in the area of security, as you all know, there's the Shanghai Cooperative Organization or SCO that was founded in 2001, and which, as that organization has evolved, has expanded to include military cooperation, intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, as well as joint military exercises. For outsiders, myself included, a number of key questions come to mind, which I hope our distinguished panel will entertain. The first is, what do we make of these different initiatives and cooperative governance arrangements? Is there less or more than meets the eye? And do they address the fundamental economic, social, political, and security challenges of Eurasia? And secondly, what is their future trajectory? Will they merge or remain independent initiatives? The membership of the Eurasian Union is almost identical to the Shanghai Cooperative Organization with the exception of China. How will so-called middle power initiatives like Korea's Eurasian Initiative fix into this mix? More fundamentally, what explains the demand for governance as reflected in these new arrangements? Is the new regionalism or institutionalism of Eurasia driven, as the program suggests, by a desire to establish spheres of influence, ala Monroe Doctrine? Is it driven by realist bounce of power motivations, which is to say a response to the so-called American pivot, to the region? Or is it, as Schumpeter might have said, an adivistic response to the Soviet past? Is it all about energy, economics, and transportation? And finally, for those of you who still remember the OSCE, whatever happened to the OSCE, is it going to fade away into irrelevance in the current political climate and with the emergence of these new Eurasian governance arrangements? So lots of questions. We're going to take the panelists in a slightly different order from what you have on your program. We're going to begin with Michel Fouche, who is the chair of Applied Geopolitics at the College of World Studies, a former French ambassador, director of policy planning, a very distinguished French practitioner and intellectual. He's a geographer, and he is going to begin by telling us something about how we should think of the geography of Eurasia. Michel. Thank you. I think that before any geopolitical thought and any geopolitical consideration, it's not useless to recall some fundamentals of geography, especially when it comes to Eurasia, which is an extremely fluid concept, an extremely variable geometry perimeter, and we don't know exactly what reality this polysemic term, a little phantasmatic, could be. So I have prepared for the conference a very, very simple map to situate a certain number of invariants. And I will then make some comments, or more exactly, I will offer you very different readings of the same reality. If we take things in the sense of the wings of a watch, starting with Korea, Japan, China, the ASEAN, we turn it around to India, Iran, which is a country of the Middle East fascinated by Asia, a future emerging country, the Arab Peninsula, Turkey, the European Union, Russia, and the Union we just talked about, you see that we have a huge space, that's the definition of geologists and geomorphologists. The Eurasian continent, supposedly continuous, 5 billion inhabitants or more. It's a space that is polycentric, long-term, with huge expanses and distances. 12-13 Eurasian rockets. I remember that President Medvedev, in 2009, had decided to reduce, to improve the efficiency of the administration, the number of Eurasian rockets in Russia. We went from 11 to 9, then to 8, because otherwise, the governor of Valyvostok would never find anyone in Moscow to account or receive instructions. The expansion, the distance, the resources. We look at resources for geological reasons. Contrary climates. It's hot, it's cold, there's water, there's no water. These are fundamental issues. Demographic poles. These are also elements of durability. At the time of Emperor Augustus, there was already the fourth humanity in the plains of the East of China. And then there was already a European pole and China's bases in the center of Pompeii. So old centers of poles, accumulation phenomena, plains, empties, centers and peripheries, old borders and recent borders, old states, training states, flows between the poles, passages, routes, obligated passages, hills, so strategy, mountains and winds. A bit of poetry today, in Seoul, citing Wang Shuren, Chinese poet of the 15th century, you will all be together, singing and interpreting each other. You will have the wind for food and the rose for drinks. So the map is ready for multiple interpretations of the subjective geography. It's a map that is saturated with geopolitical representations, multiple and contradictory. London, 1904. MacKinder considers that Russia is the heartland. It's the center where everything is going to play. Heartland, Riemland. The Riemland, MacKinder will justify Kenan, the policy of containment after 1945 and today, in the West, NATO, in the East, the seventh fleet. As for the pivot notion that was at the center of the Eurasia, it has been moving from Washington to the Pacific. It's the polemic Eurasia. MacKinder had as a reference a continental Spartan at the Socratic Sea. It's an extremely strong representation. It's a permanent heartland in the Western Diplomacy, especially in London and Washington. The Eurasia is a concept that comes back in the Russian emigration in Western Europe from 1920 to 1930, where, in the end, we try to surpass the representation of a Christian Orthodox Russia, that is, a European one, to put in value a Russia both European and Asian, a Russia that could have another destiny. We adopt, in a way, the representation of the Heartland. The geographer Savitski spoke of a Median continent, a continent to gather. It comes back after 1991, under other forms. There are dozens and dozens of books and specialists who talk about these questions, under the form of what we called the Neurasian Neuro. The challenge behind it is, of course, for the Russian elites, to become a center of the global system. This is also a heartland, but it is also a project. Let's call it, as it was said earlier, the Institute of Eurasia. The Institute of Eurasia. From Astana to Kazakhstan, Eurasia is, first, a university. The University of Eurasia, Gumi Lev. Gumi Lev was an expert in Eurasia who pleaded for an approach between Russia and Turkey, between the Turkish world and the Russian world. But the idea of an Eurasian Union is the President of Azerbaijan in a speech at the University of Moscow in 1994. There is a real reflection in the Kazakh elites on the geopolitical status of Kazakhstan, and it is translated by what we call today a multi-vector diplomacy, for obvious reasons. Let's call it the Median or the Intermediate Russia. There are other readings in the Caucasus, in Turkey, I will tell you about them. You can see that this type of representation has a major inconvenience. These are selected pieces. Exit the United States. Exit the American continent. There is a cut-off, of course. But this also plays on the organization mode. There is something called illusory. A word on the Institute of Eurasia. It is a project of the Russian Economic Union that will take effect in 2015. The idea is that there is a strong field between the two poles of the Eurasian continent that needs to be organized around an independent power center that is less prosperous, less populated, but which has a lot of resources. And it would have to be put back at the same level as the United States and China. It is not a return to the Soviet Union. It may be, but we can discuss it, to display a right of view from Moscow on the business of neighboring countries. We have developed, in St. Petersburg's geography, the idea of global regionalization. There is a whole theoretical elaboration as a factor of multi-polarity. The references of the Eurasian Economic Union are the European Union. It is the cut-off in formal terms, in institutional terms. It is obviously a project that understands the limits because central Asia, first of all, has not been as open for several centuries as today to the external influences. Some states, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, are very concerned about their sovereignty, that the United States, absent from this representation, are still very present, that China is in a period of transformation of economic influence in strategic presence. Kazakhstan is part of the Eurasian Economic Union, but its first commercial partner is China. There is another major Eurasian, a larger Eurasian, in the sense of continent, Eurasian region, One Belt, One Road, we will talk about it. I remind you that the President Xi spoke of this in Astana, at the Nazarbayev University, and the latter. You see, there is a kind of continuity and an interaction, because it is not the same Eurasian in reality. I believe that contrary to what we say, the Chinese priority is first of all international, it is to integrate the West, as there was the integration of the South, of the North-West, and to come, but it is more complicated, of the South-West. It is first of all to integrate what is outside of the 18 provinces, it is a long-term task, it is also to ensure the well-being or the stability of the immediate neighborhood. It is also to raise a challenge, globalization and maritime. 90% of the trade is containers on big boats. Here, the challenge is the continental form of globalization. It is more expensive, it is much more complicated. Here, there is a Chinese theory, which will be announced later. The challenge is also the disengagement. And so, for example, we see on the map that the Chinese companies are giving a delay to the service of the port of Guadar, or Pakistan, to dismantle the West-China. But the Indians have a 80-kilometer replica further west, in Shabar. They are investing massively on the Iranian territory to propose a disengagement of Afghanistan and for, in relation to Pakistan. Finally, I finish on it, the Razi as Trans-Razi, that is, as a passage space, a transit space. When it came to France, the president, in France, the president went to Lyon, to see the U.S. In Belgium, he made a speech at the University of Bruges. In other words, from China, the European Union has a real consistency. It is the pole at the extreme. And then he went to Duizbourg. Why do you do that? Well, to welcome a train that was left 16 days earlier from a port of China. There are currently four trains a day that take from Duizbourg towards China, three trains from Hamburg, in total, 14 or 15 per week, the Deutsche Bahn, the Russian railway, the Poles, the Belarusians. 14 trains, 80,000 tons per month. It's more expensive, it's much faster, 10 or 12 days less. Fujitsu, Simen, computers export these products by trains of 50 containers from China to the West, the same thing for Yolet-Pakat. I conclude, it is an important dimension of this logistics dimension. I think that in fact, between geopolitics and geo-economics, we are rather interested in considering that the future will be structured by the geo-economics, that is, by the investments of infrastructure and enclavement that will be consented in this space. These are those who will have geopolitical effects. It is of course to organize, as they say in China, the generalized connectivity. And then I think that the Europeans have all the interest to look a little more, not only in terms of railways, the strategic and geo-economics issues of this part of the world. And I think that the conference of the World Policy Conference today participates, but there is no doubt an effort to do in Europe to have precisely this global vision of what is currently transforming practically under our eyes on 12 or 13 fuso horaire. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ambassador Fouché. And I think an important proposition there that economics is really driving the process of integration. Geo-economics. Geo-economics, if you want to use that term. We'll now get a Chinese perspective on developments in the region from Man-Wan Dong, who is vice president of the China Institute of International Studies. Mr. Dong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dear colleagues, good morning. In fact, this topic is too difficult for me because my scope, my research scope is Middle East. Anyway, I'll try my best to make my contribution to this session. Euro-Asia continent is the largest continent in the world with great strategic importance. That's why the major powers deeply get involved in the Euro-Asia continent affairs, both in Cold War Europe and in the 21st century. Geo-economically speaking, 2014 witnessed the Ukraine crisis, which is so complicated and sensitive with regional and international repercussions. In my opinion, the Ukraine crisis is a very bad news for the international community because it has multiple agit-negative effects on many stakeholders, including the neighboring countries and outside powers which have political, economic, and cultural interactions with Ukraine. Firstly, Ukraine crisis seriously hurt the mutual trust between United States and Russia. And between European Union and Russia, which is not beneficial for the peace and stability in the Euro-Asia continent. If there's no Ukraine crisis, both United States and Russia, European Union and Russia, would have a larger space to maneuver for improving relations between them. Secondly, the Ukraine crisis has negative impact on the various forms of economic integration and cooperation in Euro-Asia continent. Since the economic development is so imperative for all kinds of countries in this continent, certainly, the Ukraine crisis created the political hurdles for the cultural and people-to-people exchanges in Euro-Asia continent, which is also necessary for building a peaceful and harmonious world. So, where is the way out? My argument is that the international community should together in pushing through a political solution which already has some reasonable basis. For example, all parties concerned with Ukraine crisis accepted the results of the general elections in Ukraine. Ukraine government and Eastern militias signed a Minsk agreement. The situation in Ukraine has the elements of the inevitable and therefore cause for a comprehensive and balanced solution that is through dialogue and negotiations to find the early solution with due respect for the legitimate rights and interests of all those in the various communities and regions. It is an urgent priority that all parties refrain from making threats and imposing sanctions because they are not helpful for the parties concerned to take a data, to make a data. Now, let me turn to the geopolitics of Euro-Asia. It's true that the economic cooperation in Euro-Asia continent currently faces some geopolitical and non-traditional challenges, but the potentialality is huge. The future would be promising. The reasons as follows. Firstly, economic and social development remains fundamental options of the Euro-Asia countries. In order to meet this goal, they have to engage in economic cooperation with neighboring countries. Secondly, even though the EU countries have taken part in the sanctions led by the United States towards Russia, but have oil and gas reliances on Russia, and this situation cannot be changed within a short period of time. So the economic interdependence between EU countries and Russia cannot be cut off. Certainly, there is an increasing room for the United States and Russia to improve their relations because some hot spots cannot be addressed by the United States itself, even cannot be addressed by the US and its regional allies without cooperation from Russia, such as the peace and nuclear issue in Korean Peninsula, Afghanistan, nuclear issue of Iranian nuclear program, Syrian crisis, and Daesh Islamic State etc. Fourthly, regional, trans-regional, and sub-regional economic cooperation framework or initiatives have gained strong momentum, which will push Euro-Asia continent towards economic rejuvenation. Some emerging economies, such as Turkey, Kazakhstan, India, Poland, Saudi Arabia play very important role in this regard. There are also some possibilities and potential additives for economic convergence and engagement between United States, European Union, Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan. Fifthly, President Xi Jinping made one belt cooperation initiative that is Silk Road Economic Belt cooperation initiative brings about new opportunities for economic cooperation in Euro-Asia continent which is welcomed by the majority of the countries alongside this continent which involves infrastructure connectivity. Connectiveness for oil pipeline, gas pipeline, connectivity for railway, for roads, connectivity for electricity grid which involves policy coordination and people-to-people exchanges. The one belt cooperation initiative is open to all countries both alongside and outside the Euro-Asia continent. Every country in the world whichever is interested in taking part in this cooperation will be welcomed and accommodated. Some of Euro-Asia continent countries also can take part in another cooperation initiative that is 21st Maritime Silk Road. This is also open to all. In order to create a better geopolitical and geopolitical environment for peace stability development and cooperation in Euro-Asia continent international community must abide by the UN Charter international law and to respect each other's sovereignty and their choice for social system and their territory integration. Finally my last word I would like to hand out international cooperation to fight against religious extremism ethnic separatism and international terrorists including Daesh Al-Qaeda Eastern Turkey Islamic movement Uzbekistan Islamic movement and church near terrorist forces. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Dong. And if I hear you correctly you are saying that politics and the Ukraine crisis in particular do pose a challenge to the geo-economic enterprise that we just heard about from Mr. Professor Fushe. Our next speaker is Alexander Panoff who is a member of the advisory board of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and he will give us a Russian view on the evolution geopolitics geo-economics of Eurasia. Thank you Mr. Chair. I can say that I will speak about Russian position it's more my position and I would like to explain mostly my views on how integration process are going on in this vast area what are the perspectives and what to expect. First of all I would like to say that idea of united Eurasia is not new one many politicians starting with France President de Gaulle in 60s of last century put forward idea of united Europe he said Eurasia from Lisbon to Vladivostok and I would like to stress that it was called war period and Europe was divided and the world was divided and still this great statement put forward the idea which we now discuss more concretely. So he had a real understanding of the future. Well Russia also view itself being both European and Asian as Eurasian and President Putin in January this year in Brussels proposed to start as the first step negotiation for integration and creation till 2020 as fear of the free trade between European Union and Western Union which is Russia Belarusia and Kazakhstan Foreign Minister Lavrov in his public speech in November this year mentioned the conception of forming up united economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It's important that the minister talked about this despite the current crisis in Europe, Russia and American relations. So well crisis is very now in a difficult stage but we should understand that each crisis well finally will be settled in any way but the ideas they exist they work despite crisis and I would like to say that of course in we have also conceptions of chairman of China sitting about Silk Road economic belt and Century maritime Silk Road known shortly as one belt and one road and this conception was put forward without any clear explanations and I would like to say that not only this idea put forward without any clear explanations usually politicians are put forward such initiatives without any concrete explanations and later as well as advisors those business people are trying to explain what is behind all these initiatives so now we here also trying to explain what is it and what might be because well Chinese side explained to Russia that of course Russia is included in this conception we have heard just now from our Chinese colleagues that every country may participate but this is still a very wagyu idea so for Russia it's also not clear what will be the Russian road would be it's such that Russia will just see how speed high speed trains are going from Beijing to Europe and Russia just will give greetings to such trains or maybe Russia will be as a passenger this train with its own commodities or maybe Russia will be also driving this train so it's many questions which are not clear and I also explained say that it's very important that President of the Republic of Korea, Park Gang-hee proclaimed Eurasian initiative which envisions connecting the Eurasian continent divided logistic and remove obstacles that hinder exchanges to make the continent a viable single entity in this sense we have a conception of United Eurasia from Lisbon to Busan so it's another conception I would like to say that yes it's difficult to foresee the United Eurasia maybe the road first step might be integration of integrations on this vast territories but return to the initiative of the President of Republic of Korea I would like to say that Russia supported from the very beginning this idea and President Putin explained his attitude moreover this initiative is fully in line the Russian proposals in the regard that we laid out one of such initiatives linking then trans-Korean and trans-Siberian railways in order to ensure a quick, reliable safe and rather low cost transportation of goods between Asia and Europe implementing large scale plans developing the forest Russia is interested to use the obvious advantages namely the develop relations with the North Korea and the Republic of Korea there are a number of projects in which Moscow, Seoul and Pyongyang are already involved particularly those in transport and energy sectors during his visit to Seoul November last year President Putin said at press conference should not be a hostage of politics on the contrary should become an important consolidating and reconciling factor and Russia already took certain steps practical steps aimed to renovate the railroad system and develop port facilities in the North Korea and the results is visible in November this year 40,000 tons of coal from Russia was transported by modernized by Russia railroad in the North Korea to the new port in the North Korea which was constructed almost by completely by Russia Port Rajin and after that this coal was shipped to Republic of Korea it is only first step later we are planning to have container transportation using these port facilities Russia already and Republic of Korea and North Korea are discussing the project to build a gas pipeline from Russia through territory of two Korea states and only if of course two Korea states reach an agreement this plan could be carried through rather quickly and will help to create atmosphere of trust between two Korean states of course to make the Eurasian initiative to succeed the Caribbean in Seoul must be first to dismantle the wall of this trust and it's not an easy as we understand but we should try to go this way he already was mentioned Eurasia European Union which will start its activity January 1st next year and I would like to add to what our chairman said what this Eurasia Economic Union means first of all it's seen like an energy very rich construction producing about 20.7% of the world natural gas 14.6% of the world oil it also produces 9% of the world electrical energy and 6% of the world coal 6 of 8 major Asian highways go through the Eurasian economic territory the highways the EU to many countries in Europe and Asia EU already established Eurasian Development Bank the bank already provided financing totaling more than 4.5 billion dollars to investment projects in the member states there is a plan to have a common currency unit in a span of 5 to 10 years under the program of creating the single economic space single market there is a goal to achieve 4 freedoms 3 movements of good capital, services and people expert predicting at 25% growth in the member states of EU GDP by 2030 it already was said that Armenian Kazakhstan are joining this organization and finally already positively reacted to the creation of this organization and see the prospects of combination of Silk Road strategy with the activity of EU interesting that foreign minister of Germany Walter Stanmaier when he was visiting Moscow in November this year stated that it is important to establish dialogue between European Union and Eurasia European Union well not only supporters of this union but there are also opponents some politicians and scholars see the EU as a Russian idea to unite many of the former Soviet republics and restore Russian Empire Hillary Clinton when she was State Secretary of the USA in December 2012 herself openly expressed a position to the creation of the Eurasia Economic Union claiming that it is an attempt to reestablish a USSR type union among the former Soviet republics and promised to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it. What we see now in Ukraine is maybe regarded as one of such efforts unfortunately but for Russia it is natural that today one of the main geopolitical interests of Russia lies in ever close integration with the states former Soviet republics which are now which are power of Eurasia it is clear that it is nothing to do with the intention to restore Soviet Empire it may be of course not the same approach but when we see the very much interest of the United States to create a transatlantic partnership and know any objections but we can also say that the United States are trying to do this to control economically Europe of course some may say so but of course it is not maybe Europe will reject such interpretation but why Russia when it is trying to create economic cooperation it is the best thing but when United States is planning also not only in transatlantic but trans-Pacific region it is a good thing well, in conclusion now we have not only declarations of intentions but already some concrete plans and arrangements for creation step by step the United Economic Eurasia this process is not easy there are many obstacles as well and I will repeat that under the circumstances maybe the most practical approach will be the approach I name it integration of integrations thank you thank you very much Mr. Panov and our next speaker is Justin Vase he is the director of the policy planning staff in the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs thank you very much Fenn I will present some remarks that will be quite brief and that will not be a French vision or an official vision but rather a European vision what is the European vision of the Eurasia I think the first thing to say is that Eurasia is not the notion that Michel Foucher said well before covers two realities either we talk about Central Asia or we talk about Macinders, the Netherlands both Europe and Asia and for the first reality the concept that we use is simply Central Asia and for the second simply there is no reality in European representations it is quite different from the way of the reality covered by the term in the spirit of the Russians for example in the various definitions over time that the Eurasia has covered and which obviously is a reflection of their double orientation both Asian and European or the term is also used by geopolitologists including Americans for example there is at the State Department a direction called the direction of Europe and the Eurasia so the term is used but there we are more in Central Asia than in the idea of an ensemble that would be put in both Europe and Asia and I do not believe that the Chinese use this expression and that it is a useful and usable expression so it was the first point Eurasia is not really in the European lexicon not only it is not in the European lexicon but it is also not in our geopolitical practice or in our geopolitical grammar Europe does not have great geopolitical vision Michel Foucher deplored it earlier I am not sure he is going to deplore it to come back to these lexical and grammar questions to talk about the region and the whole region is quite different we are talking about neighbouring we are talking about association we are talking about partnership agreement we are talking about four spaces for example which was one of the one of the initiatives in Russia we are talking about development programs we are not talking about chiquiers for example which is the imaginary notion that vehicles are the politicians the concept of Russia and so it is a different way to think about things and I think that a fundamental point here and I think that it is quite well reflected by the lexicon that we use vis-à-vis of the region as it is vis-à-vis of many other regions which is the of the choice of the countries of the region if we are talking about Asia-Central in particular what matters in the European vision is not necessarily to have an integration but at least to have a choice of possible integrations for Uzbekistan for Turkmenistan and the others to know what these countries want to join a good example of regional organization is the OSCE and indeed these Central Asia countries voluntarily joined the process of the OSCE in the early 90s and the OSCE is in fact from a certain point of view an Asian organization even if it does not include China but includes North America so the third point is what the European Union does in Central Asia and finally in this particular geography the first thing it does is a support to stability I do not need to come back on the episode of Afghanistan and the European contribution to the stability of Afghanistan a deep commitment to those who were not the same than those of the United States who were different in their nature but who were in fact a clear contribution to the stability of Afghanistan and the region a contribution to the type of people who could have made the neighbors but I think of other examples in the 2000s and 2010s in particular the action of places in 2005 or in Kyrgyzstan in 2010 during the different events and other revolutions that have been marked the second thing that the European Union does is in particular cooperation agreements and of course trade delegations of the European Union were opened in each of these Central Asia countries with a permanent political dialogue an example really in terms of illustration it is the fact that in almost no of these countries there is the death penalty in the 90s the dialogue of places with these countries has led these countries to reconsider the question whether there is a lasting moratorium whether these countries are abolished the death penalty I believe that to come back to this idea that we have to leave the regions in this region where in fact there are two very powerful poles that are Russia and China it is basically a power or a presence that does not have strategic drawing that does not have strategic objectives and which therefore is easier with which it is easier to cooperate and so in the end how do we see the different existing organizations projects in the region the OSCE I said it earlier seems important to us even if the OSCE does not include China because it is a bridge organization between the different countries of the region and in particular an organization in which Russia belongs and in which it is possible to discuss security issues of the region while keeping a certain transatlantic dimension there is also obviously the organization of the cooperation of Shanghai even if at the start of the OSCE it is in a restrained or handicapped way by the necessity of unanimity and finally there is the Eurasian Union the European Union is obviously flattened to be taken as a model by the Eurasian Union what we have to say is that in general since 2010 the very material reality of the Eurasian Union exists since 2010 from the moment the Eurasian Union entered into play and the first thing to be noted is that the European Union flattened this Eurasian Union at a price of about 500 million euros per year because of the rise of Eurasian tariffs in particular those of Kazakhstan on Russia and we think that in the long term the protectionist trend of this Eurasian Union is not necessarily suitable for the development once again of the long term of the region but once again it is in the country of the region that it comes back to choose what they want and what they don't want an Eurasian Union a lot of them have underlined it is a benefit for them they have also marked it quite clearly it is the case of Kazakhstan among others which did not want to go further and therefore it is conformed to what Alexander Panoff said there is an instance it is not a recreation of the USSR and certainly we do not see it not as a competition for the European Union and on the contrary if it is an economic reality that continues to be imposed not only we think let's say we wish the best but we also think that it can provide a dialogue frame with the European Union which allows to come back to move the friction that exists with Russia currently from a political and military to an economic field if indeed the European Union and the Eurasian Union can discuss common economic projects and commercial exchanges it is something that we see as something very positive it adds to the efforts that were made by South Korea or China to develop the region and maybe at the end of the day to come back to what Michel Fouché insisted at the end of his own intervention economic realities and geopolitical will probably end up being imported thank you very much Justin for perhaps sounding a few skeptical notes our next speaker is Mr. Myung Wan Yu who is chairman of Sejong University and before that was Korea's Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister Yu thank you Mr. Hemsom as the previous speakers already mentioned even though we often used the term of Eurasia there is no single definition as to what the term means so with this caveat I will take liberty to speak about the Korean perspective toward the Eurasia and its importance in fact it was not until the Eurasian Park was integrated last year that the Korea's Eurasia policy was officially announced and elevated to be called Eurasian initiative even though the previous government under which I served as foreign minister also focused mainly on geoeconomic aspects of Eurasia in South Korea when you talk about Eurasia it immediately remind us a silk road a road of yellow gold to the city of Samaritkan it's halfway to North East Asia from Europe it was 2000 years ago that the east and the west by this 4000 mile long silk road and seas of civilization was disseminated here and there to all corners of the world through this road however during the past 100 years in our recent history the significance of the silk road was forgotten due to issues and ideological barriers now Eurasia again drew attention of major big powers like China, Russia and the United States as well China underwent big gas and oil pipelines project with both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan with the Silk Road Belt initiative and Russia is also a strong mover or strong proponent for the creation of Eurasia Economic Union which will be launched as of January 1st 2015 the United States is also trying to connect Afghanistan to Central Asia with a new silk road strategy so we may predict that in not too distant future the renaissance of silk road the Eurasia initiative by South Korea is still at the nascent stage but I think was developing for the details that South Korea is trying to implement the Eurasia initiative with the forward-looking and somewhat creative thoughts the initiative has several aspects of actual policy implementations first it was an idea to increase connectivity between Europe and Asia by means of upgrading physical connections such as a multiple transportation networks including railway, land road, shipping and air links as was emphasized yesterday morning through her remarks Korea also proposed a trans-eurasian information network project at the last ASEAN summit Asia-Europe summit in Milan, Italy and the final communique adopted that idea as a joint project secondly developing close and cooperative relations with each and every central Asian country as you know majority of these Eurasian countries embarked on a road to industrialization only after the Cold War ended but these landlocked countries face greater constraints in trading with outside world Korea is holding the annual forum with Central Asian countries at the vice-minister level since 2007 with a view to enhancing mutual cooperation and Korea also launched a strategic partnership with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in 2005 and 2007 respectively and thirdly a missing link a very important missing link that must be re-established in order to complete connectivity between Europe and East Asia the missing link is the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea that has made South Korea a virtual island of the Eurasian continent So it is a dream of South Korea to connect the trans-Siberian railway TSR and trans-Chinese railway TCR with the trans-Korean railway that is TKR and it will create a comprehensive logistics network and eventually realize a Silk Road Express SRX it's a dream but it's not a pipe dream so there has been a possessive idea to link Korean Peninsula with Kyushu, Japan through an underwater tunnel just like a dober straight tunnel in Europe and some people argued that an initial future village study showed that economic merit because of so much cargo from Japan and South Korea will reach Europe via railway taking less than a week So here the most daunting task is how to persuade North Korea to agree on trans-Korean railway and to connect it to either TSR or TCR so far North Korea rejected that kind of idea and rejected the plan to use this railway jointly with South Korea In fact major improvement and overhaul of the North Korean railway system is necessary in order to connect it with South Korean railway but recently as Ambassador Panop mentioned Russia had successfully launched a pilot project in the city guard using a partial linkage of 54 kilometers railway between Hassan and Nazin Hassan is a border seat of Russia and Nazin is a seaport of North Korea So Siberian was transported to the port of Nazin through the railway which was refurbished by Russia and then the Chinese cargo ship carried the call from Nazin port to Nazin in South Korea The initial amount of coal was only 45,000 tons equivalent to 5 million US dollars Russia also proposed a gas line project to North Korea in order to deliver natural gas from Siberia to South Korea via North Korea which was proposed by the Lee Myung-bak government and the foreign minister visited North Korea to suggest that idea but the project still remained pending mainly due to North Korea's reluctance and resistance The Korean financial issue inextricably related to the peace and integration as the German issue 25 years ago was also closely linked to the European peace and integration and such geopolitical constraints of Korean Peninsula will not go away any time soon Therefore the unification of the Korean Peninsula will be possible to the interest of the surrounding big powers and the big power will not cease to be as long as tension persists in the region or vice-versa The North East Asia peace and cooperation initiative we call it NAPC NAPCI which was also proposed by President Park Geun-hae last year was aimed at transforming region's tension and trust The NAPCI can overcome an Asian paradox that stems from imbalance or discrepancy between increasing economic dependency and pervasive security concerns In this regard NAPCI will have a synergistic effect with the Eurasian initiative to bring peace prosperity in the region and ultimately will contribute to laying the ground for the unification of the Korean Peninsula NAPCI is a process-oriented policy and it's not it's a goal In other words, NAPCI is a multilateral cooperation mechanism to start a dialogue among nations in the region Firstly, soft agenda such as German energy, security disaster relief, cyberspace and nuclear safety, etc As trust is being built more complicated issues including security agenda could be discussed And we believe that the Helsinki process in Europe can be a model to in developing and carrying out this process of NAPCI in the future Thank you very much for your attention Thank you very much Minister Yu And before we throw things open to the audience I'd like to pose a question to our panelists I detected a few discordant notes between the Chinese and Russian conception of Eurasia And my question to both our Chinese and Russian panelists Is it conceivable to think of Chinese role or Chinese membership in the Eurasian Union at some point? Particularly since commodity prices are falling That clearly has an impact on integration efforts Generally integration tends to be more successful if they're winners in the pack And it's hard to see too many winners in that grouping right now as things stand economically Who'd like to start? Well As I said China expressed support for the creation of Eurasia Economic Union And of course there is no now any preliminary talks of the possibility of China joining this a new organization that is natural it's fragile and China is huge economic power and at this stage I can't see the possibility China will join this organization though in the future anything is possible But I said that the approach might be integration of integrations So as far as Silk Road initiative I said only that it is not yet clear what does it mean practically is it only infrastructure project or energy project or more comprehensive China already said that China putting forward this initiative include Russia for discussions how to realize this project but so far we haven't yet received any concrete proposals but I am sure that Russia is very much interested to participate in this project but not as I said just second or third participant but as an equal partner that's all Mr. Don The information I got so rise just same something like that Professor Panof mentioned that there is some context between China and Russia on how to hand out harmonious interactions between one belt cooperation initiative with Russians domestic economic strategy and the Eurasia economic community and also with Shanghai cooperation organization I heard that President Xi Jinping and President Putin in some occasions discussed this matters but it also will go on the further discussion between the two governments but the cooperation the potential between China and Russia is very huge so both countries can do a lot of things to upgrade their cooperation I think the economic cooperation between China and Russia can play a very important role to bring about the common development in Central Asia and also will exert positive impact on the economic cooperation alongside Eurasia continent. Thank you. And then a quick question or French panellists it wasn't clear to me from both your respective presentations whether Ukraine in particular has raised the bar to greater cooperation and engagement with the Central Asian Republics or in fact lowered it by creating stronger incentives for engagement and cooperation and you did mention on the security side the OSCE do you still see the OSCE playing an important security role particularly vis-à-vis the Central Asian Republics or not? I do I think it's the only one we've got right in this which is pan-European and I would add Eurasian at least in part where all the countries are represented on an equal basis and have the opportunity to discuss security issues with a clear basis for these discussions and this negotiation which is the Helsinki Charter the recognition of the sovereignty of countries etc. and we hope to see play a greater role even for Ukraine for example for border control or other issues it's something that we very much count on For some the Euro-American sanctions which have an economic and financial impact much more than a political impact on the decisions of the Kremlin which are increasingly accelerated we saw it for gas the conclusion of a series of agreements between Russia and China so in a way there was a work of some ideological thesis around Eurasia in any way it's a geographical reality an intermediary space and indeed our Russian friend or we look at the trains or we are an actor of all this I still note that in the official Chinese cards on the Silk Road Economic Belt nothing happens by the Russian territory Russia is mentioned from the Bosphorus so indeed there are certainly differences not divergence differences from point of view with in particular the Iranian factor on which I think we need to be more attentive Yes, if I can just add one thing, there was an interesting phenomenon two weeks ago an interesting event that was held by the Iran of its ferret network in the north with the Asian Central network allowing it to be better connected to China and shortening the delays between China and Iran to the south to the hot sea Well at this point I'd like to invite our patient audience to ask questions the gentleman in the middle row there and right there It was an excellent panel however I would like to remind you that there is another institution which had been mentioned and which will be playing probably a crucial role in the build up of what will be a future Eurasia like it or not it is a Shanghai organization which will bring three or four states more in the next five years It was mentioned briefly like Iran or like probably Pakistan Turkey which is rapidly moving into combination of economic and security fields previously the Chinese didn't want to be more economic because and Russians wanted to be more secure we competed we were emerging because we needed that so it will be the central organization so there will be something of a geoeconomic and political alliance in the center of Eurasia like it or not what kind of relationship will it have with the outside world is a big issue so I would like you to react to the future of Shanghai organization, thank you The SCO was indeed mentioned in my remarks, some of our panelists mentioned it I'm going to collect one more question and then I'll ask our panelists to respond the gentleman over there on my left I have two comments that will lead me to a question the first comment is on a little bit of disinterest of this concept of Eurasia in Europe a disinterest that has been called is not shared in the United States since under the Bush administration there was a will to segment what was presented as the post-Soviet space between Central Asia Caucasus and Eastern Europe and we have quite a few attention in Europe to this concept of Eurasia which is present in Putin since the start with both his project Space A4 which is formulated in 2003 between Russia and Kazakhstan Belarus and Ukraine and also it has not been mentioned the importance agreed at that time to the organization of collective security supposed to be the military pendant of NATO in the Eurasian space and so it leads me to my question I would like to have the opinion of the panelists on the dynamic provoked by the Ukrainian crisis Michel Foucher has said a word that is the reality that they agree to get closer between China and Russia does it seem to them to be something that is going further or is it something very conjunctural that would correspond to a sort of diplomatic maneuver a bit desperate from Moscow thank you for your answer a marriage of necessity we will just go down the panel you can take either question for Shanghai Cooperation Organization this is the very fruitful cooperation from a framework consultation of the member countries I think every member of Shanghai Cooperation are on equal foot and respect each other at the initial stage of this organization is based on cooperation on fight against religious extremism ethnic separatism and international terrorism but on the later stage the cooperation expanded to the economic domain and also there is some cooperation project on economic field so the function of Shanghai Cooperation organization attention from some Eurasia countries that is some countries became the observers and dialogue partners such as India, Pakistan Iran Mongolia and Turkey some of countries also applied for the full member of Shanghai Cooperation organization I think maybe in some near time in future the membership will expand it so I think there is a lot of work to do in Shanghai Cooperation how to build a cooperation with other regional organizations and cooperation framework thank you Mr. Fouché I think a autarsic vision of the Asian economic union would be a mistake Ukraine will not do it very well but the interest of the Russian Federation I still remember that more than 50% of the exchanges of the Russian Federation continue to do with the European Union the interest is to take as quickly as possible an economic cooperation once arranged by a tripartite agreement between Brussels and Moscow the situation in this region I also remember that the European investments especially in France and Russia maybe the TGV in Moscow will be Chinese I prefer it to be Alstom sorry for my Chinese colleague Mr. Panov well even before the Ukrainian crisis Russia put forward several times a proposal to discuss economic matters between Russia, Ukraine and the European Union how to avoid such situation that Ukraine will be divided between two choices either with European Union or with Russia but actually finally it was happened in such ways that European Union and United States are oppressed Ukrainians to make a choice in favor of one side and now we will see the situation is complicated but at the same time Russian leadership is saying that we are still interested to have this consultation and talks between three parties and to find some solution because economically Ukraine is much more connected with Russia and Ukraine Union and Russian money were invested in many sectors of Ukrainian economy Ukrainian production is not needed on European market so if to cut all the links between Ukraine and Russia then Ukrainian economy will be very dangerous situation already it is so and it's interesting if European Union and United States are ready to pay for this for absolutely remodernization of Ukrainian economy which require billion and billion of dollars and before that how Ukraine will survive yes it is interesting that European Union are giving money to Ukraine they disappear in this country without any result because everyone knows that there is a lot of corruption now it's interesting situation maybe well unique that Ukrainian government included several foreigners into its government because they don't trust their own people and well but to return to the point I think that it's still a room for negotiations and on practical level as I know between Russian economic agencies and ministers and European Union branches they still are going on consultations and talks on practical matter so I'm not so pessimistic and I'm sure that as I said sooner or later the crisis will be over but we should find solution to this problem of course as soon as possible Mr. Ves I will answer the question of Thomas to be frank I'm quite skeptical I think that anyway there was a tendency of Russia to turn more towards China which was a diversification whatever the events in Ukraine or elsewhere were logical but I think that on the one hand there was a little bit a part of illusion in the idea that Europe on the most energetic for example the West towards the American gas and that Russia could turn for the export towards the West, towards China in both cases we have not only very important delays but also economic logic in which the recent decrease in oil and therefore gas for contracts which are linked to the price of oil remind us that they are quite unpredictable and that they can change the amount of money in addition there are a number that Russia cannot find in China it can certainly find capital it can find in part of technology in part of the labor hand even if it is certainly not what it wants but it will have it it cannot find certain technologies in particular for the modernization of the operation of these oil resources and that is in fact it seems to me one of the limits to this approach but to this question since it is a relationship of force I would like to come back to a conversation that I had and which shows the difference of view between the French and the Russians and certainly between the Europeans and the Russians with Sergei Karaganov a few months ago in Moscow and so I said to Sergei to provoke him a little I told him I think we were in English but the Chinese are going to eat your lunch that is to say that in fact in Central Asia and elsewhere the Chinese are going to have the high hand on a certain number of investments on the economic exchanges etc. and Sergei's answer it was make my day that is to say that in relation to a relationship maybe of balance with the Europeans a relationship of balance with the Chinese we were ready to explain without wanting to betray a discussion that we had between us to try the Chinese Mr. Yu Regionalism or regional institutions such as the Russian Economic Union is good if it is open and inclusive but it is bad if it carries a notion of sphere of influence or hegemonic context thank you very much we appear to be running on monokin time at this conference so I am going to take one more question before I close the panel even though time is up the gentleman over there on my right with the red tie thank you German I have a question to Michelle Silk Road for Japanese is very romantic in the midst of history but today what we see in Eurasia is rather power games and countries there are largely small have a very different geo-economic setting and their desire seems to be converged but quite often they desire conflict with each other so taking all these into account if there be any common cause for countries in Eurasia to get together or if not just a marriage of convenience which do you think is real and that's a yes or no answer in Afghanistan if there is no access to ports outside of Pakistan that's why Islamabad holds Kabul where the Indian counter-strategy offers another way via l'Iran things are relatively simple I think we need to de-geopolitize all these questions as much as possible but still there are traces borders passage points procedures so it's important to include these regions this empire environment in the global game with their resources but it's complicated it's expensive and indeed it's the one who will put the most money on the table the first to finance the best infrastructures but then only geopolitical effects