Ukraine, Poland And The EU-Enlargement To The East

International Conference of Heinrich-Boell-Stiftung (Germany)
and Independent Cultural Magazine �Ji� (Ukraine)

L�viv - Przemysl May 22-25, 2001

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EU EASTERN ENLARGEMENT:
POLAND, UKRAINE, AND BORDER QUESTIONS

Preliminary Report
on an International Conference of the Heinrich Böll Foundation
in Lviv, Ukraine and Przemyśl, Poland
May 22-25, 2001

I. INTRODUCTION

The international conference, “The Consequences of EU Eastern Enlargement: The Case of Poland and Ukraine,” was held from May 22-25, 2001, in the cities of Lviv, Ukraine and Przemyśl, Poland. The conference – organized by the Heinrich Böll Foundation (Berlin), the cultural journal and non-governmental organization “ï” (Lviv), and the Southeastern Europe Institute (Przemyśl) – assembled over 70 participants from Ukraine, Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia to discuss the political, economic, and cultural ramifications of EU enlargement for cross-border relations between Ukraine and Poland. These relations have blossomed since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 but may become severely attenuated when Poland adopts the Schengen acquis, and possibly a strict Schengen visa regime, as part of the EU accession process. The conference thus sought to highlight the importance of implementing a permeable Polish-Ukrainian border regime – characterized by economic cooperation, continued cultural rapprochement, and the spread of democratic values – after Poland joins the EU. The primary purposes of the conference were (1) to provide a forum for exchanging knowledge among policymakers and regional experts, (2) to strengthen media awareness of the complex issues surrounding the future eastern border of the EU, and (3) to provide concrete policy recommendations for the creation of flexible border regimes between EU accession countries and those countries that will remain outside the future EU eastern border.

The conference represented a large-scale follow-up to two previous conferences held in 1997 and 1998 within the framework of the joint Polish/Ukrainian and French/German project entitled “Border Conversations.” This project has been sponsored by the Heinrich Böll Foundation since 1997.

The two previous conferences were extensively documented and published as bilingual special editions of the journal “ï”. The most important texts from these publications were made available to participants of the May 2001 conference in the form of a quadrilingual (Ukrainian, Polish, German, French) compilation that provided an overview of the key economic, political, and cultural issues surrounding the structuring of the future EU eastern border. The Preliminary Report you now hold in your hands is meant to provide (1) a brief overview of conference proceedings and (2) a summary of key policy recommendations that emerged from conference working groups and plenary discussions. This Preliminary Report will be followed in late 2001 by a full conference documentation that will appear both as a bilingual special edition of “ï” and as an English-language Internet version.

The conference organizers strongly hope that the conference and its accompanying publications will provide an impetus for the structuring of humane border regimes not only at the Polish-Ukrainian border but along the entire eastern border of an enlarged European Union.

II. BORDER CROSSINGS

A significant component of the conference’s success was its unique program. Along with more standard program features such as plenary discussions and working groups, an entire day was dedicated solely to the physical crossing of the Ukrainian-Polish border. Conference participants were loaded onto two buses that traveled from Lviv to Przemyśl via the Shegyni-Medyka border crossing point, and from Przemyśl to Lviv via the Korczowa-Krakovets border crossing point (replete with handwashing rituals to prevent foot-and-mouth disease). Lectures on the history and current state of Polish-Ukrainian relations, a reception with the mayor and city council president of Przemyśl, and meetings with representatives of Polish political parties and the Ukrainian minority in Poland completed the day’s program. The purpose of these actual border crossings was to provide conference participants with (1) a clearer awareness of the extraordinary historical, cultural, political, and economic continuities and discontinuities on both sides of the border, and above all (2) tactile experiences with the borderline that will soon become the eastern border of the EU.

The border crossings inspired powerful reactions among conference participants. Michael Emerson (Center for European Policy Studies, Brussels) reported as follows:

During the Soviet period, the Iron Curtain was buttressed by additional “iron curtains” within the Soviet bloc itself, including a near-total separation of Poles and Ukrainians in an ideologically and politically based attempt to cover up the historical conflicts and forced migrations that had partially characterized relations between these two peoples. The opening of the Polish-Ukrainian border in 1991 and the implementation of visa-free cross-border travel for Poles and Ukrainians not only created an opportunity for both nations to begin coming to terms with a frequently troubled past, but also caused an explosion of transborder economic activity, cultural cooperation, and interpersonal-interfamilial reunions. Despite the inefficiency and overbureaucratization of the current border regime, this transborder activity has had highly beneficial political, cultural, and economic effects for both Poland and Ukraine. What these interactions at different levels have had in common is a more or less explicit orientation toward shared European values and perspectives.

At present, however, Polish-Ukrainian border relations play at best a minor role in the foreign policy priorities of the European Union. Nevertheless, if Poland’s entry into the EU is accompanied by an uncompromising implementation of the Schengen acquis, the Polish-Ukrainian border may become much more impermeable, thereby jeopardizing these positive effects and potentially destabilizing the economic and political reform course of Ukraine, a situation which may ultimately pose a security risk to the entire European Union. Thus EU interests in promoting security, democratization, and economic development in Europe demand the implementation of border policies that seek to maximize flexibility while minimizing potential security risks.

III. WORKING GROUPS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

While the first full day of the conference brought participants in touch with the actual border, the second and final full day was dedicated to plenary discussions and working groups. Simultaneous with the beginning of the conference, an article appeared in the International Herald Tribune in which Romano Prodi and Goran Persson urged the EU to place a higher priority on its relations with Ukraine. Prodi and Persson argued that the EU’s democratic values and security interests demanded its firm support of continued political and economic reform in Ukraine. The article thus underscored the timeliness of the conference, the growing prominence of the issue of EU enlargement and its implications for the EU’s future eastern border, and the urgency of providing practical policy recommendations for structuring this border in a manner that reinforces transborder cooperation among EU and non-EU states. A primary goal of the three working groups at the conference was to formulate such policy recommendations and publicize them among top European policymakers and scholars. The recommendations of the working groups are summarized below.

Working Group 1:

Structuring the Border Regime of an Enlarged European Union: Examples, Options, and Legal and Administrative Prerequisites

There was a clear consensus with this group that, despite the hopes of some Poles and many Ukrainians, a visa regime will certainly be introduced between Poland and Ukraine when Poland joins the EU. While the Schengen acquis may be implemented in full immediately upon accession or gradually over a period of years thereafter, Ukrainians will almost certainly require some type of visa, national or Schengen, to enter Poland. Thus the task for this working group was to examine how the impending visa regime could be structured in a way that would facilitate transborder cooperation rather than hindering or even reversing the progress that has been made in Polish-Ukrainian relations during the past ten years. The group’s discussion underscored the following policy instruments for ensuring a flexible border regime:

• Types of visas

The EU must simplify visa procedures to the greatest extent possible by offering long-term, multiple entry visas. To ensure that cross-border travel does not become a class-based privilege, visas should be inexpensive or free of charge. An additional possibility is the introduction of a one-day (18-hour) visa that would be particularly convenient for persons living in border regions. It should be underscored that most of these options are allowable under current Schengen regulations (see point 3 below). Example: Estonia and Russia have already agreed on the introduction of long-term, multiple entry visas, issued free of charge, for citizens of the frontier region of Narva-Ivangorod.

• Consular services and infrastructure

In order to meet the certain onslaught of applications for visas following implementation of Schengen regulations in accession states, consular services of EU member states must be significantly expanded in countries bordering an enlarged EU. Policy options include: (1) increasing the number of consulates in urban centers along the entire eastern border of the EU; (2) significantly expanding the administrative capacity of consulates (e.g., more staff, enhanced technological infrastructure); and (3) combining national consulates into “EU” consulates to concentrate capacity and expertise. Example: Sweden will soon open a consulate in Kaliningrad that will be able to issue visas for other Schengen members.

In addition, visa application procedures must be simplified. While applications for a first-time Schengen visa will almost certainly require a personal interview, the possibility of renewing visas either by mail or via electronic means should be considered. In order to prevent non-EU individuals from feeling like second-class citizens, lines must be short and service must be cordial. This requires both enhanced administrative capacity and staff training. In order to maximize a respectful service culture, national governments might also consider the creation of “incentive” programs to reward consulates that are particularly efficient (yet ethical) in processing visa applications.

The expansion of consular services is critical to the establishment of a user-friendly visa regime. However, these improvements require a considerable expenditure of resources. Currently, revenues collected by consulates are redirected to national coffers. Governments should consider reinvesting consulate revenues into the consulates themselves to improve services and facilities.

• Maximizing the flexibility that already exists within Schengen

The Schengen acquis already contain certain inherently flexible features. These include: (1) the possibility of issuing so-called “bona fide” visas (currently restricted to persons primarily from the fields of business, culture, education, and athletics) that can be issued according to a simplified procedure that takes days, not months; (2) the possibility of issuing multiple entry visas, one-year visas, multiple entry visas valid for a period of 1-5 years, and cost-free visas; and (3) the possibility for EU member states to delegate consular tasks to other member states’ consulates (thereby allowing the creation of so-called “EU” consulates mentioned above). These features, and any other components of Schengen that allow for the flexible implementation of border and visa policies, must be thoroughly examined and maximized wherever possible. Again, however, the effective implementation of such policies inevitably requires significantly expanded consular capacities.

• Improving border crossing facilities as well as customs and passport controls

The conference’s excursions across the Polish-Ukrainian border revealed that delays at the frontier can be exasperatingly long even under a visa-free regime. Measures must be taken to improve efficiency, modernize technical infrastructure, promote a stronger service mentality, and reduce possibilities for corruption at border crossing points. National authorities bear primary responsibility for such improvements. However, the EU can provide significant assistance by (1) continuing to invest in improved border infrastructure and (2) offering training programs for border personnel, in accession states as well as those states remaining outside the eastern border of an enlarged EU.

• Ukrainian visa policy for EU citizens

Ukrainian authorities should consider abolishing visa requirements for EU visitors. This policy unnecessarily hinders cross-border traffic and tourism and thus has economic, political, and cultural consequences. If the Ukrainian government believes it cannot afford to lose the revenue, then it should establish a convenient procedure whereby visas can be purchased quickly at points of entry. Example: Turkey has introduced this latter procedure.

• Electronic frontiers

Technological innovations should be exploited to maximize the efficiency of visa application procedures and border crossing formalities. Policy options include: (1) the widespread introduction of machine-readable passports and visas; (2) equipping EU border crossing points with on-line electronic access to the Schengen Information System, which could allow visas to be renewed directly at points of entry; and (3) the introduction of so-called “smart cards” (similar to a credit card with photo identification), which could control and record short-term visits. Example: such “smart cards” have been introduced at the U.S.-Mexican border for daily cross-border commuters.

• Media and public education campaigns

Effective media and public education campaigns on post-enlargement border and visa regimes must be mounted by the EU, individual accession states, those states situated directly to the east of an enlarged EU, and local authorities in border regions. These campaigns must explain, clearly and simply, (1) what Schengen is, (2) how visas can be obtained, and (3) where information can be obtained and complaints can be registered. Such efforts must seek to demystify the “Schengen regime” and relieve fears that the future eastern border of the EU represents a potential new Iron Curtain.

• Local and regional efforts in border regions

Policymakers, NGOs, etc., should be encouraged to create local and regional cross-border partnerships to lobby national and European officials for the establishment of humane border policies at the future eastern border of the EU. Such partnerships – such as the one established between city officials from Lviv and Przemyśl during the May conference – can help to increase local, regional, national, and international awareness of the issues facing the regions straddling the future EU eastern border. By strengthening local and regional transborder networks, such partnerships will also inevitably enhance cross-border cooperation in general.

• Ukraine’s prospects for EU membership

The EU should openly declare its support for Ukraine’s ultimate membership in the EU. While it is highly improbable that Ukraine will qualify for EU membership in the short or medium term, the prospect of ultimate membership is crucial for shaping public attitudes as well as political and economic decisions made by Ukrainian policymakers and entrepreneurs. Ukraine’s current course of political and economic reform is fragile and intransparent, and many analysts suggest that Ukraine is increasingly destabilized by conflicting “pro-EU” and “pro-Russian” orientations. While the EU’s support of democratic and market-oriented reforms in Russia must also be intensified, a declaration in favor of Ukraine’s ultimate EU membership – backed up by concrete, realistic policies to promote local and regional development -- could provide a significant boost to social forces that promote democratization, privatization, an independent media, and a strong civil society. This process would enhance both Ukrainian stability and EU security and could also have beneficial spillover effects in Russia.

The policy suggestions listed above are not meant to be exhaustive, nor are they equally practicable. Different policy options have different time frames and require different resource expenditures. Nevertheless, the working group’s discussion made clear that there are numerous policy options for establishing a flexible visa and border regime at the future eastern border of the EU. It is hoped that these recommendations will contribute to the growing awareness of EU border issues among policymakers, scholars, media, and NGOs, and that this awareness will ultimately translate into effective policy decisions.

Working Group 2:

Cross-border Cooperation: Economic and Political Concepts (Business and Trade, Transport, Euroregions, and Migration of Labor)

This group’s recommendations included the following:

• The EU’s regional and cross-border efforts must be strengthened. Euroregions (such as the Bug and Carpathian Euroregions, of which both Ukraine and Poland are members) must not only be promoted, they must be improved, through:

• A de-emphasis on centralized, overbureaucratized state-level efforts and a stronger focus on local and regional cross-border projects. This policy redirection should seek to strengthen civil society development by providing for project administration and budgeting authority at the local and regional (i.e., subnational) levels.

• A radical revision of existing PHARE and TACIS financing instruments. Currently, these programs are largely disjointed and do not allow for joint project applications between countries that receive PHARE funding (e.g., Poland) and countries that receive TACIS funding (e.g., Ukraine). These programs must be made more flexible and mutually compatible.

• Stronger public education and informational campaigns (about the EU, about the potential benefits of Euroregion activities) at the substate (community, region) level.

• Greater transparency.

• Greater financing.

• The strengthening of local and regional efforts within the structure of Euroregions should also serve to promote the flow of information back to the EU with regard to the priorities and concerns of border regions.

• The implementation of a humane, flexible Polish-Ukrainian border regime following Poland’s entry into the EU (see recommendations of Working Group 1).

Working Group 3:

Cross-border Cooperation: Education, Culture, and the Media

In order to ensure maximal transborder cooperation at the level of education, culture, and the media, this working group recommended the following:

Actions at the Non-governmental and Regional Level

• Establishment of an international news server providing up-to-date information on Ukraine and Poland in Polish, Ukrainian, and English.

• Formation of a knowledge exchange system through book exchanges between Polish and Ukrainian libraries and information sources, both “real” as well as “virtual.”

• Establishment of an independent, non-governmental institute for historical research in Lviv, as a counterpart to the Southeastern Europe Institute in Przemyśl; this institute would focus on the collection and publication of studies on ethnic minorities and bilateral relations in the region, thereby promoting a “coming to terms with the past” among both peoples.

• Expansion of opportunities for studying both Polish and Ukrainian language and culture; this project should include an effort to enhance the social status of both languages.

• Polish scholars should become involved in efforts to reform the Ukrainian university system, especially in the area of post-graduate studies.

• The Polish-Ukrainian Forum should expand its membership to include representatives of Ukrainian and Polish NGOs.

Recommendations to National Governments and the European Union

• EU programs established to provide assistance to accession states should be expanded to include Ukraine, and the different systems of PHARE and TACIS should be harmonized in a manner that enables better cooperation among states receiving PHARE funds and states receiving TACIS funds (see recommendations of Working Group 2).

• Multiple-entry visas should be provided free of charge to artists, scholars, and journalists whose work promotes cross-border cooperation.

• The system of Euroregions should be further developed, using the Polish-Ukrainian border region as a priority case study.

• Local cross-border initiatives should be provided with stronger political and financial support independent of their respective national contexts.

IV. MEDIA RESPONSE TO THE CONFERENCE

The May 2001 conference received impressive international media coverage, including reports by radio and television stations as well as national and regional printed media. The following texts are currently available via e-mail from the editors of “ï” (ji@litech.lviv.ua):

• Gazeta Wyborcza (Warsaw), May 30, 2001: Report on the conference, including an interview with the former Ukrainian foreign minister, Borys Tarasyuk (in Polish)

• Den (Kiev), May 29, 2001: “Euroskeptics and Eurocynics: Who is Right?” (in Ukrainian and English)

• Den (Kiev), June 1, 2001: “We Need a General Sense of Altruism, Not Just toward Ukrainians;” interview with Stanisław Stepień, Director of the Southeastern Europe Institute (in Ukrainian and English)

• Postup (Lviv), May 31, 2001: “Ukraine’s European Dreams: Comments from an International Conference,” by Lubko Petrenko (in Ukrainian and German)

• Badische Zeitung (Freiburg), June 9, 2001: “And Out You Go: The Polish-Ukrainian Border at Shegyni-Medyka Will Become a Wall in Europe after Poland Enters the EU – The Ukrainian City of Lviv, Freiburg’s Sister City, Will Remain on the Outside,” by Wolfgang Heidenreich (in German)

• Center for European Policy Studies (Brussels): “Borderland Europe (8): Galicia, Schengen, and quid Ukraine?” by Michael Emerson (see also http://www.ceps.be/Commentary/June01/Emerson.htm)

Despite the political and geographic centralization of Ukrainian television in Kiev, television coverage of the conference was surprisingly extensive. On Sunday, May 27, 2001, just two days after the conclusion of the conference, the prime time news program of the Kiev-based national television station ISTV broadcast a 15-minute report focusing on the conference and the overall problem of the future EU eastern border. Such extensive coverage was remarkable, especially since the conference had been organized largely by a small NGO based in Lviv, with no official involvement on the part of authorities in the national capital. The report not only featured prominent international politicians (including Gernot Erler, member of the German Parliament, and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, member of the European Parliament), but also quoted members of the Ukrainian political opposition (Borys Tarasyuk) as well as Taras Voznyak, director of “ï”, a journal whose articles are often critical of the national government.

This national government’s unfamiliarity with EU border issues was underscored when the ISTV news announcer confronted Anatoliy Kinakh – President Kuchma’s candidate for the then-vacant post of Prime Minister – with several pointed questions on the issues raised at the Lviv/Przemyśl conference. Caught clearly off-guard, Kinakh responded to the questions in an incoherent manner. Four weeks later, however, Kinakh – who had become Ukrainian Prime Minister in the meantime – demonstrated that he was better prepared to address the issues of EU enlargement and the future Polish-Ukrainian border regime. On June 27, 2001, Radio Free Europe published the following report:

Anatoliy Kinakh on 26 June urged the EU to avoid creating new economic barriers when it spreads into ex-communist Central and Eastern Europe, Reuters reported. “EU enlargement should not create artificial problems as regards economic integration toward the east and movement of people. I suggest that we should simplify visa regimes, that we look for better solutions so that integration does not suffer because of EU enlargement,” Kinakh told journalists after talks with senior EU officials in Luxembourg. Kinakh also said the EU will provide Ukraine with funds to create a modern infrastructure along its eastern borders, including the training of customs and border troops officers. (RFE/RL Newsline)

The Heinrich Böll Foundation (www.boell.de) is not the only organization seeking to highlight the importance of border issues within the framework of EU enlargement. The Center for European Policy Studies (Brussels, www.ceps.be), the Stefan Batory Foundation (Warsaw, www.batory.org.pl), the Center for Applied Policy Research (CAP) (Munich, www.cap.de), the Bertelsmann Foundation (Gütersloh, www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de), and the SITRA Foundation (Helsinki, www.sitra.fi) are among the growing number of organizations that have recently held top-level policymaking conferences on this subject. It is the hope of the conference organizers that the ideas, networks, and policy suggestions developed in Lviv and Przemyśl will continue to expand so that the awareness and efforts of policymakers, local and regional actors, NGOs, scholars, and media representatives will increasingly intensify and ultimately have an effect on national and European border policies. European institutions are becoming increasingly aware of the ramifications of enlargement for the future eastern border of the EU. Actors on all levels – local, regional, national, and international – must ensure that this awareness translates into border policies that promote, rather than obstruct, cross-border cooperation between EU member states and those states remaining outside of an enlarging EU.

Report Authors:

Kurt Klotzle (Berlin) and Walter Mossmann (Freiburg)

For further information, please contact:
Contact persons:
Heinrich Böll FoundationWalter Kaufmann (kaufmann@boell.de)
Rosenthaler Strasse 40/41Klaus Linsenmeier (linsenmeier@boell.de)
Hackesche HöfeKurt Klotzle (klotzle@boell.de)
10178 Berlin
Tel. (49) (30) 285 340

VI. CONFERENCE PROGRAM

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EU EASTERN ENLARGEMENT:
THE CASE OF POLAND AND UKRAINE

Tuesday, May 22, 2001

Arrival of Participants at the Hotel Dnister

14.00 Lunch

16.30 Excursion (historic city center)

19.00Dinner (Historical Museum)

Welcoming remarks: Walter Kaufmann and Taras Voznyak

Introduction to the conference theme: Walter Mossmann

Wednesday, May 23, 2001

Excursion to Przemyśl, Poland

(Co-organizer: Dr. Stanisław Stepień, Director, Southeastern Europe Institute)

8.00 Bus departs from Hotel Dnister

Border crossing at Shegyni-Medyka

Hands-on experience of the Polish-Ukrainian border infrastructure

During the trip: Lecture on “Ukrainian-Polish Conflicts in the 20^th Century” by Andriy Pavlyshyn

10.00 Arrival at the office of the mayor of Przemyśl

Location: City Hall

Welcoming remarks: Wojciech Inglot, Chair of Przemyśl City Council

Presentation: Stanisław Stepień: “Border Regimes during the Past Half-Century”

11.00 City Excursion (Castle, Greek-Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Cathedral, Synagogue)

12.30 Lunch at Hotel Gromada

Presentation: “Lviv and Przemyśl: Polish-Ukrainian Conflicts over Galychyna (Galicia),” by Anna Veronika Wendland

15.00 Visit to Przemyśl marketplace (cross-border trade)

16.00 Meeting with representatives of the Ukrainian minority

Location: Narodnyj Dim (People’s House)

Presentation: “Economic Aspects of Transborder Cooperation,” by Klaus Bachmann

17.00 Meeting with Polish political party representatives (UW, AWS, SLD)

18.30 Departure from the Przemyśl City Hall

Border crossing at Korczowa-Krakovets

21.00 Dinner at Hotel Dnister

Thursday, May 24, 2001

Plenary Discussions and Working Groups

Location: Budynok Vchenykh (House of Scientists)

10.00-13.00 Opening plenary discussion:

How Does Europe View its “East”? The EU and Ukraine

Moderator: Gernot Erler

Presentations by Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Myroslav Popovych

Comments: Walter Mossmann and Zdisław Najder

11.30 Coffee Break

11.45 Discussion

13.00 Lunch at Oselya restaurant

14.30-18.00 Working Groups:

1.Structuring the Border Regime of an Enlarged European Union: Examples, Options, and Legal and Administrative Prerequisites
Moderator: Walter Kaufmann
Brief Thematic Introductions: Andriy Deshchytsya, Iris Kempe, Klaus Bachmann

2.Cross-border Cooperation: Economic and Political Concepts (Business and Trade, Transport, Euroregions, and Migration of Labor)
Moderator: Klaus Linsenmeier
Brief Thematic Introductions: Iryna Hudzelyak, Kasia Wolczuk

3.Cross-border Cooperation: Education, Culture and Media
Moderators: Walter Mossmann, Sofia Onufriv
Brief Thematic Introductions: Mykola Ryabchuk, Мarcin Wojciechowski

16.30-16.45 Coffee Break

18.00 Concluding Discussion

20.00 Banquet (Budynok Vchenykh/House of Scientists)

Friday, May 25, 2001

Departure of participants

VII. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Malcolm Anderson, Paris Senior fellow, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)

Dr. Klaus Bachmann, Warsaw Journalist for numerous German newspapers

Martine Chantrel, Freiburg Institut Français; “Border Conversations”

Dr. Nataliya Chernysh, Lviv Sociologist, Ivan Franko University

Izabella Chruslińska, Warsaw Director, International Division, Polish National Broadcasting Council

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Frankfurt/Brussels Member, European Parliament (Green Political Group)

Marek Cynkar, Przemyśl Radio journalist for “Radio Rzeszów;” Ukrainian-Polish Press Club, Przemyśl

François Darcy, Brussels French national expert at DG H, Council of the European Union

Dr. Andriy Deshchytsya, Kiev Coordinator, Polish-American-Ukrainian Cooperative Initiative (PAUCI)

Orest Drul, Lviv Journalist for the Lviv-based regional daily newspaper Postup

Juriy Durkot, Lviv Freelance journalist; political scientist

Michael Emerson, Brussels Senior fellow, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)

Gernot Erler, Berlin Member, German Parliament; deputy chair, Social Democratic parliamentary fraction

Gudrun Fischer, Berlin Heinrich Böll Foundation, Eastern Europe Department

Jarosław Guzy, Warsaw Member of the executive board, Polish Atlantic Club

Dr. Annegret Haase, Leipzig Leipzig Institute of Regional Geography

Wolfgang Heidenreich, Freiburg Radio journalist; author; “Border Conversations”

Harald Herrmann, Freiburg Painter, “School of Perception” (Freiburg), “Art and Psychiatry” (Cracow)

Peter Hilkes, Munich Ukraine specialist, Institute on Eastern Europe; director, “Ukrainian Forum”

Dr. Bohdan Hud’, Lviv Specialist in Polish-Ukrainian relations; director of Institute on European Integration, Ivan Franko University

Iryna Hudzelyak, Lviv Lecturer, Economic and Social Geography, Ivan Franko University

Wojchiech Inglot, Przemyśl Chair, Przemyśl City Council

Walter Kaufmann, Potsdam Coordinator, Eastern Europe/Caucasus Department, Heinrich Böll Foundation; “Border Conversations”

Dr. Iris Kempe, Munich Eastern Europe specialist, Center for Applied Policy Research (CAP)

Diane Klochko, Kiev International Renaissance Fund; director, Open World magazine

Kurt Klotzle, Berlin Project manager; editor

Mykola Knyazhytskiy, Kiev Editor, ISTV National Television

Piotr Kosiewski, Warsaw Stefan Batory Foundation

Kai-Olaf Lang, Berlin German Institute for International Politics and Security (SWP)

Gilles Lepesant, Bordeaux Geographer; instructor, College of Europe (Natolin, Poland)

Beat Leuthardt, Basel Journalist; author of On the Edges of Europe

Nataliya Ligachova-Chernoputska, Kiev Deputy editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian daily newspaper Den

Klaus Linsenmeier, Berlin Director, International Division, Heinrich Böll Foundation

Marian Majka, Przemyśl Mayor, City of Przemyśl

Dr. Markian Malskiy, Lviv Political scientist; dean, International Relations Department, Lviv University

Dr. Myroslav Marynovych, Lviv Sociologist; Institute for Church and Society

Ludwig Mehlhorn, Berlin Evangelical Academy of Berlin-Brandenburg

Oleksandr Mishenko, Kiev Ukrainian Foreign Ministry

Walter Mossmann, Freiburg/Lviv Author; director; journalist; “Border Conversations”

Dr. Zdisław Najder, Warsaw Advisor to the Prime Minister of Poland; Office of European Integration

Dr. Tadeusz Andrzej Olszański, Warsaw Director, Ukrainian Department, Ministry for Economic Cooperation

Sofia Onufriv, Lviv Program manager, “ï” cultural journal; “Border Conversations”

Natalia Parkhomenko, Kiev Attorney

Marina Pavlova-Silvanskaya, Moscow Carnegie Center

Andriy Pavlyshyn, Lviv Historian; deputy editor-in-chief, “ï” cultural journal; Amnesty International

Svyatoslav Pavlyuk, Kiev Program officer, Polish-American-Ukrainian Cooperative Initiative (PAUCI)

Inna Pidluska, Kiev Assistant director, Center for the Study of Political Science

Dr. Myroslav Popovych, Kiev Philosopher; professor, Kiev-Mohyla Academy; member of the National Academy of Sciences

Elena Prokhorova, Brussels Correspondent, BBC Russian Service

Mykola Ryabchuk, Oxford/Kiev Author; journalist; deputy editor-in-chief of the literary journal Krytyka

Andriy Sadovy, Lviv Director, Lviv Oblast Development Foundation

Joscha Schmierer, Berlin German Foreign Office, Policy Planning Staff

Ina Schöneberg, Berlin Europe specialist, parliamentary fraction for the German Green Party/Alliance ’90

Jens Siegert, Moscow Heinrich Böll Foundation, Moscow Office

Dr. Jerzy Stańczyk, Warsaw Institute for the Study of Political Science; National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Stanisław Stepień, Przemyśl Historian; director, Southeastern Europe Institute

Ivan Sulyatytskiy, Lviv Military Institute, Lviv Polytechnic University

Borys Tarasyuk, Kiev Member of the political group “Reform and Order;” former Ukrainian Foreign Minster and Ambassador to the Benelux countries

Lyubomyr Tokar, Kiev Political scientist, Institute for International Security (within the National Security and Defense Council)

Antti Turunen, Brussels Principal administrator at the Policy Unit of the EU Council Secretariat, Council of the European Union

Piotr Tyma, Warsaw Deputy director, “Association of Ukrainians in Poland”

Thomas Urban, Warsaw Correspondent, Süddeutsche Zeitung

Taras Voznyak, Lviv Editor-in-chief, “ï” cultural journal; director of International Relations Department of the Lviv City Council

Dr. Sławka Walczewska, Cracow Project partner of the Heinrich Böll Foundation; “eFKa” women’s organization

Dr. Elisabeth Weber, Berlin Eastern Europe specialist, parliamentary fraction of the German Green Party/Alliance ’90

Dr. Anna Veronika Wendland, Leipzig Historian, Center for the History and Culture of East Central Europe

Marcin Wojciechowski, Warsaw Journalist, International Section, Gazeta Wyborcza

Dr. Kasia Wolczuk, Birmingham Lecturer, Center for Russian and East European Studies

Adam Zagajewski, Paris Author; poet; philosopher

Viktor Zamyatin, Kiev Editor of the Ukrainian daily newspaper Den

Adam Zieliński, Warsaw Stefan Batory Foundation