Athens 19 September 2006
ELIAMEP organised a Round Table lunch discussion in cooperation with the EU-Russia Centre on: EU – Russia Relations: Developments and Prospects. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the media, the business sector, NGOs and think tanks. The round table included briefings by the Director of the EU-Russia Centre Dr. Fraser Cameron and Dr. Dimitris Triantaphyllou, Director of the International Centre for Black Sea Studies (ICBSS). The brief presentations were followed by an informal discussion and exchange of views.
Event Report
Introduction: Professor Tsoukalis opened the roundtable, which included an invited audience of politicians, officials, diplomats, business, media and policy representatives, by comparing the different standpoints of the two actors under discussion: the EU and Russia. While the EU is stronger in low politics, Russia, as a post-imperial power, expresses high politics. Energy, one of the main issues between the EU and Russia today, is an example of low politics turning into high politics. Nevertheless, these two actors share a common interest: their neighborhood. This dictates cooperation. He also underlined that the wide potential that underpins the EU-Russia relationship has still not been realized and that discussions relating to ‘sovereignty’ remain one of the more sensitive issues in their bilateral relations.
EURC: After presenting the background and activities of the EU-Russia Centre (www.eu-russiacentre.org). Dr Cameron described EU-Russia relations as problematic.
The problems lie less in Brussels and more in the member states; in effect, a common strategy has been declared at EU level but it suffers from the lack of coherence in its implementation among the member states. While energy is a key interest it is important not to forget shared values. The importance of the EU-Russia relationship is crucial. Many see it as one involving an element of blackmail, however, in reality it is a relationship best described as one of “interdependence”. It is not in the long-term interest of Russia or the EU that the Russian economy is so heavily dependent on the energy sector and the EU can help in achieving diversification. The growing social problems (relating to health issues and its affect on demographics) of Russia were also mentioned. It is also in both parties’ interest that the shared neighbourhood is not characterized by conflicts. Dr Cameron said that both sides could learn much from one another and urged greater cooperation in all spheres, including the situation in Belarus and the region’s ‘frozen conflicts’.
EU-Russia: Dr Triantaphyllou said that Russia today faces the problem of how to position itself in relation to the EU. What will its strategic role be? Could it gradually integrate into the EU system and structures, or it will retain its great power status and keep its distance? Some of the factors Russia must take into consideration to define its stance are: the acute demographic crisis, mutual dependency in economic terms, historical links with Europe and the fact that among all its partners, the EU is the most advanced. Dr Triantaphyllou also stressed the need to take into account the Russian specificity: Russia is not going in the wrong direction but rather it is returning to the direction of the period before the Bolsheviks: a nationalistic, tsarist, capitalist and imperial direction. Nevertheless, Russia provides added value to EU politics in the international arena, as it is an advocate of many views shared by the EU – for example multilateralism.
On the other hand, the EU cannot claim to have devoted much time to Russia. The main challenge for the future of this relationship will be to diffuse the notion of a win-lose situation into a win-win one. Referring to the recent hype of the signature of the Burgas-Alexandroupoli project, he cautioned against over-excitement or any mistaken interpretation of preferential Greek-Russian relations. Naturally Greece wishes to increase the scope of its relations with Russia; however, this is taking place against the wider framework of EU-Russia relations.
Discussion: In the discussion, many participants insisted on the notion of interdependence between the EU and Russia. The sooner both sides realize that they are inextricably linked to each other and commit to a common vision and best possible integration, the better the relationship will be. This idea was challenged by others who pointed to Asia and claimed that Russia will have options to open up to new markets. In effect, even though pipelines to the eastern markets are not yet in place, these growing economies are very likely to soon be very willing to pay for energy and Europe should not ignore this.
Strategic Partnership: There was some debate on the nature of the EU’s various strategic partnerships. How could one translate this into something meaningful and functional as regards Russia? And what of common values in a strategic partnership? Some argued that a free trade area would be of help in developing a closer relationship. Others warned of the dangers of the EU adopting double standards (eg Kosovo). Some also voiced concern as to the extent to which the new member states might prevent a genuine partnership with Russia.
Energy Security: The security of supply for Europe is at least as important as the security of demand in Russia. Increasing concerns on the European side are justifiable but we must avoid hysteria. Historically, Russia has been a reliable partner. Of course both sides should strategically aim to diversify as the energy markets are currently under transformation. The need for new investments and the increasing energy consumption inside Russia are also part of the dynamics. As for the notion of political blackmailing, we must be more objective in our evaluation of Russian actions. The use of economic (in this case, energy) tools to achieve political ends is not a new discovery; it is a characteristic of international relations. The change of prices by Russia should not surprise us and should not be considered as blackmail. Russia is facing its own problems in Eastern Europe in the transportation of its energy products.
Ultimately, the business world sees the whole issue as a problem of applying the market economy in Russia. By applying market rules in Russia, automatically certain discriminations that exist today will disappear. As per business practice, investors have to be certain that they can rely on legislation; and in this respect, the EU must see the topic globally and coherently. FDI in Russia can increase significantly – there is ground for business and closer EU-Russian cooperation here. One area where the EU could help is expanding exchanges with SMEs to ensure a lobby for good governance and the rule of law.
Identity and Values: Some participants referred to the importance of identity, which ultimately shapes the political views in a country. To a large extent, the West itself can be blamed for the current drift of Russian attitudes. There was skepticism about the level of the dialogue on values and ideas currently in place – we are discussing these issues at an elite level – how can we take the dialogue down to the civil society, especially inside Russia? Dr Cameron said that there were no short-term solutions and that the EU must work in all areas to help ensure better governance in Russia.
Conclusion: The debate revealed the complexity of EU-Russia relations and the difficulty of any outside actor influencing developments in Russia. Moreover, Russia was compared to the US in terms of the approach it adopts towards the EU: when the Union has a common approach that is not fully appreciated by Moscow (or Washington), they break it up at the capitals. There was a consensus that the EU should attempt to achieve greater coherence between the member states vis-à-vis Russia and that it should not give up its value based foreign policy for short-term commercial advantages.